Skip to main content

Full text of "Fluoridation of water. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Eighty-third Congress, second session, on H. R. 2341. A bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. May 25, 26, 27, 1954"

See other formats



e.\^o RA59k5>U52 

Given By 

X^ ^ STTPT or no rTT]^,fj7]S[TS 











H. R. 2341 


MAY 25, 26, AND 27, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 




c^,,^,^ ^uu--. COMMITTEE ON 




H. R. 2341 


MAY 25, 26, AND 27, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 


Leone, Di 



. WASHINGTON : 1954 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 

• 0^^ 

CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

CARL HINSIIAW, California 
JOSEPH P. O'HARA, Minnesota 
JOHN W. HESELTON, Massachusetts 
JOHN B. BENNETT, Michigan 
JOHN V. BEAMER, Indiana 
ALVIN R. BUSH, Pennsylvania 
JOSEPH L. CARRIGG, Pennsylvania 
THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington 
J, ARTHUR YOUNGER, California 

Elton J. 

J. PERCY PRIEST, Tennessee 
OREN HARRIS, Arkansas 
WILLIAM T. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania 
F. ERTEL CARLYLE, North Carolina 
PETER F. MACK, Jr., Illinois 
HARLEY O. STAGGERS, West Virginia 

Layton, Clerk 

Professional Staff 


Sam G. Spal A. E. Stockburgbr 


Text of H. R. 2341 1 

List of individuals who submitted communications in opposition to H. R. 

2341 490 

List"of State dental associations, by States, in opposition to H. R. 2341 _. 489 
List "of State health departments, by States, in opposition to H. R. 2341. _ 488 
Report of — 

Army Department 4 

Bureau of the Budget 5 

District of Cohnnbia Board of Commissioners 1 

Health, Education, and Welfare Department 5 

Interior Department 2 

Post Office Department 5 

Statement of — 

j^Adams, Mrs. Vera E., president, National Conamittee Against Fluori- 
dation, Inc 151 

Armstrong, Dr. Wallace D., Medical School, University of Minne- 
sota 306 

^ Betts, Dr. Charles T., Toledo, Ohio 86, 221 

Birmingham, Florence, president, Massachusetts Women's Political 

Club 45 

Brusch, Dr. Charles A., director, Cambridge Medical Center, Boston, 

Mass 141 

Dean, Dr. H. Trendley, secretary, council on dental research, Ameri- 
can Dental Association 273 

Doty, Dr. J. Roy, secretary, council on dental therapeutics, American 

Dental Association 289 

Exner, Dr. Frederick B., fellow of the American College of Radiology, 

University of Washington 62 

Ford, Hon. Gerald R., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan 8 

Franzen, Mrs. Hugo, San Francisco, Calif 95 

Gale, Dr. E. Harold, chairman, council on legislation, American 

Dental Association 255 

Garvey, Francis J., secretary, council on legislation, American Dental 

Association 24 5 

Ginns, Dr. Max, senior dental consultant, Worcester City Hospital, 

Worcester, Mass 190 

Harris, William Leslie, superintendent, water department. Grand 

Rapids, Mich 329 

Hey roth, Dr. Francis F., associate professor of industrial toxicology 
and assistant director, Kettering laboratory, department of pre- 
ventive medicine and industrial health. College of Medicine, 
University of Cinciimati 310 

Hobson, Maj. Robert W., Dental Corps, Research and Development 

Division, Office of the Surgeon General 403 

Hunt, Hon. Lester C, a United States Senator from the State of 

Wyoming I37 

Jordan, Harry E., secretary and chief executive officer, American 

Water Works Association (delivered by David Auld, director) 409 

Kleinfeld, Vincent A., attorney, Washington, D. C 36 

Knutson, Dr. John W., Chief dental officer, Public Health Service 362 

Leone, Dr. Nicholas C, Chief, Medical Investigations, National 

Institute of Dental Research 362 



Statement of — Continued Pa«« 
Long, Hon. George S., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana 121 

Manning, Dr. Paul, dentist, Springfield, Mass 198 

Palmer, Claude N., member, board of directors, National Committee 

Against Fluoridation 16 

Paluev, K. K., research and development engineer, Pittsfield, Mass-_ 173 
Porterfield, Dr. John D., vice president, Association of State and 

Territorial Health Officers 405 

Robinson, Mrs. Aileen S., Seattle, Wash 177 

Schmidt, Mrs. Peder P., Minneapolis, Minn 165 

Spira, Dr. Leo, New York, N. Y 185 

Swift, Mrs. Harmon, associate editor, Social Spectator, New York, 

N. Y 221 

Van DeVere, Lillian, president, Citizens' Committee Against Fluorida- 
tion, and Connecticut Pure Water Association 108 

Watt, James, manager, Washington office, Christian Science Com- 
mittee on Publication 58 

Welsh, George W., city manager. Grand Rapids, Mich 336 

Wier, Hon. Roy W., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota 6 

Zipkin, Dr. Isadore, senior scientist, National Institute of Dental 

Research 362 

Additional information submitted for the record by — 

Adams, Mrs. Vera E., some objections to fluoridation 164. 

American Dental Association: 

American Cancer Society, letter from Dr. Charles S. Cameron. _ 258 

Chapman et al. v. City of Shreveport, brief 252 

Interassociation Committee on Health, statement of 259 

Letter from Francis J. Garvey, secretary, council on legislation. _ 448 
McFarlane and Hoffman v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 

City, brief '- 24.6 

Pohcy of 259 

Status of fluoridation in the United States, its Territories and 

possessions. May 14, 1954 261 

American Medical Association, letter from Dr. George F. Lull, 

secretary and general manager 459 

Black, A. P., head, department of chemistry, University of Florida, 

letter from 461 

Brett, Dr. George J., a comparative study of dentistry in natural 

fluoridation and nonfluoridation areas 240 

Brusch, Dr. Charles A., effect of fluorides on the human body 147 

California State Board of Public Health, letter from Dr. Charles E. 

Smith, president 4 85 

California State Department of Public Health, letter from Dr. Malcolm 

H. Merrill, director 485 

Carpenter, Dr. C. H., letter from, transmitting other material 320 

Central District Dental Society, Little Rock, Ark.: 

Letter from Dr. R. L. Smith, Jr., secretary-treasurer 328 

Resolution of 328 

Citizens' Committee Against Fluoridation, resolution of 115 

Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, Inc., letter from Pierrepont E. 

Twitchell, president 239 

Congress of Industrial Organizations, letter from Katharine Pollak 

Ellickson, executive secretary, social-security committee 4 60 

Connecticut Pure Water Association, resolution of 115 

Crane, Mrs. Robert H., letter from 244 

Deubel, Charles C, Jr., letter from 233 

Dummett, Dr. Clifton O., letter from, transmitting articles 413 

Fanale, Dr. S. J., letter from 484 

Ferguson, Anna M., letter from 240 

Gould, Dr. A. R., letter from 243 

Grand Rapids (Mich.) Chamber of Commerce, letter from Alex T. 

McFayden, executive secretary 9 

Harris, William Leslie: Fluoride application, Grand Rapids, Mich., 

January 1954, table. 333 


Additional information submitted for tlie record by — Continued Pase 

Health, Education, and Welfare Department: 
Biography of — 

Knutson, John William 392 

Leone, Nicholas Charles 392 

Zipkin, Izadore 392 

Communities using fluoridated water, 1945-53, chart 377 

Deaths from (charts) — 

Cancer, United States, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, 

1943-50 375 

Five causes in fluoride and nonfluoride cities, 1949-50 374 

Heart disease, United States, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, 

1943-50 376 

Intracranial lesions. United States, Grand Rapids, and 

Muskegon, 1943-50 376 

Nephritis, United States, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, 

1943-50 375 

Decayed, missing, and filled teeth per adult, fluoride and non- 
fluoride communities, chart 365 

Decayed, missing, and filled teeth per child (charts) — 

Fluoride and nonfluoride communities 363 

Nine years after fluoridation (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 364 

Distribution of bone fracture experience (charts) — 

Number per 100 boys 381 

Number per 100 men 381 

Estimated fluorine ingested in food and in drinking water contain- 
ing 1 part per million fluorine, table 380 

Fluorine content of urine in relation to fluorine in drinking water 
in (charts) — 

Grand Rapids, Mich 384 

Montgomery County, Md 383 

Fluorine reported in dry substance of food, table 380 

Fluorine reported in food as consumed, table 380 

Incidence of abnormal clinical findings, 1943-53, table 386 

Mean carpal ossification ratio, chart 382 

Missing teeth per adult, fluoride and nonfluoride communities, 

ciiart 365 

Percent fluorine in ash, charts 38-^, 385 

Prevalence of abnormal laboratory and dental findings, 1943 and 

1953, table 386 

Rate of longitudinal growth at proximal and distal end of tibial 

diaphysis, chart 385 

Towns using naturally fluoridated water, chart 366 

Hodge, Harold C, professor of pharmacolog}' and toxicology. Uni- 
versity of Rochester, letter from 4 70 

Hoffman, Hon. Richard W., letter from 387 

MacVriiiimie, Dr. Arthur B., letter from, transmitting statement 222 

Maxcy, Dr. Kenneth M., professor of epidemiology, the Johns Hop- 
kins University, letter from 462 

McCormack, Hon. John W., letter from, transmitting telegram from 

a number of doctors 412 

McQueen, Mrs. Josephine, statement of 224 

Mick, Dr. Robert J. H., letter from, transmitting information against 

fluoridation 124 

Nassau County (N. Y.) Medical Society, telegram from Dr. Joseph G. 

Zimring, chairman, legislation committee 360 

New Jersey State Dental Society, letter from Dr. Francis Lehr, chair- 
man council on fluoridation 432 

New Jersey State Department of Health: 

Bacon, John E., statement of 438 

Ludlam, Dr. Earl G., chief, Bureau of Dental Health, letter from. 433 

Wisan, Dr. J. M., statements of 434, 440 

New York State Dental Society, letter. from Dr. Charles A. Wilkie, 

secretary 361 

New York State Society of Dentistry for Children, letter from Dr. 

Solomon N. Rosenstein, president 361 


Additional information submitted for the record by — Continued Tae« 

Parran, Dr. Thomas, letter from, transmitting information 444 

Plainfield (N. J.) Dental Society, letter from 455 

Prestholdt, H. L., statement of 228 

Pure Water Association of America: 

Letter from Mrs. Herman J. Kuppers, State chairman, Florida 

statewide committee 486 

Statement of Anthony J. Romeo, president, New York statewide 

committee 24 1 

St. Louis Medical Society, report of, reprint from Missouri Medicine, 

February 1954 338 

Suffolk County (N. Y.) Dental Society, letter from Dr. S. A. Medvin, 

secretary 360 

Waldbott, Dr. George L., medical evidence against fluoridation of 

public water supplies 234 


TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

Washington, D. C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in the committee 
room, 1334 New House Office Building, the Honorable Charles A. 
Wolverton (chairman) presiding. 

(H. R. 2341 and the reports thereon are as follows :) 

[H. R. 2341, 83d Cong., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That no agency of the Government of the 
United States (including the government of the_District of Columbia, and of 
each Territory and passession of the United States), and no agency of any State, 
or of any municipality or other political subdivision of a State, shall treat any 
public water supply with any fluoride compound, or make any water so treated 
available for general use in any hospital, post oflSce, military Installation, or 
other installation or institution owned or operated by or on behalf of any such 

govebnment of the district of columbia, 

Executive Offices, 
Washington 4, D. C, April 29, 195^. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
United States House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mb. Wolverton : The Commissioners have for report H. R. 2341, 
83d Congress, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination 
of water. 

The bill would prohibit the United States Government, the Government of 
the District of Columbia, every State, and every municipality or other political 
subdivision of a State, from treating any public-water supply with any fluoride 
compound, or from making any water so treated available for general use in 
any hospital, post office, military Installation, or other installation or institution 
owned or operated by the United States Government, the government of the 
District of Columbia, and State, and any municipality or other political subdivi- 
sion of a State. 

This report is directed to the harm which, in the light of scientific opinion, 
would result to the residents of the District of Columbia if the use of sodium 
fluoride in the water supply of the District were prohibited. It should particu- 
larly be noted that while H. R. 2341 purports to be a bill to protect the public 
health from the dangers of fluorination of water, such dangers appear to be 
imaginary. The real danger lies in the elimination of flouride from the Dis- 
trict's water supply, since it has been estimated by the Director of Public Health 
of the District that should such action be taken, after a period of 10 years 
there would be 65 percent more caries in the teeth of the children of the District, 
and that by the time such children were 40 years of age, 95 percent of them 
would have lost the majority of their teeth. The loss to the public would be 


twofold : the cost of increased dental work, and a deterioration of the public 
health arising from the increase in defective and missing teeth. 

The May 1953 Journal of the American Dental Association discusses the 
fluoridation of water in an editorial reading as follows : 

"Evidence favoring fluoridation continues to mount. 

"Resolutions passed last month by two of dentistry's leading scientific agen- 
cies, decisions made by 2 of the country's larger cities and reports presented by 
2 different groups of researchers strengthen the already sound position of pro- 
ponents of vpater fluoridation. The Council on Dental Research, April 10, after a 
reevaluation of evidence, reaffirmed its support of fluoridation as a dental health 
measure and commended departments of public health for their scientific con- 
tributions to the problem of caries control through fluoridation. The Council 
on Dental Health on April 14 restated its support of fluoridation as a safe anti- 
cariogenic measure, pointing out that the volume of accumulated scientific data 
has established beyond any reasonable doubt both its safety and eflSiciency. Mil- 
waukee citizens on April 7 by referendum overwhelmingly approved fluoridation, 
and Cincinnati by an 8 to 1 vote of its city council on April 1 decided similarly. 
Three researchers from the University of Rochester reported on April 7 that 
'if all fluoride in drinking water containing one part per million fluorine were 
to be deposited in the skeleton, the situation would be perfectly safe.' And 
lastly, a Yale University School of Medicine scientist again scotched the rumor 
that fluoridation of water increases the incidence of cancer by reporting to the 
International Association for Dental Research, March 20, that tumors trans- 
planted into mice developed more slowly if the mice received fluoride. Thus the 
scientific evidence mounts monthly in favor of fluoridation, leaving to opponents 
of the process only vapid arguments based either on emotionalism or misinfor- 

The Commissioners have been informed that the American Medical Association, 
the American Dental Association, the American Public Health Association, the 
State and Territorial Health Oflicers Association, the United States Public 
Health Service, the National Research Council, and other leading professional 
and scientific organizations have fully endorsed controlled water fluoridation 
as an outstanding public health measure. 

The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the controlled fluoridation 
of the water supply of the District of Columbia is of beneflt to the citizens of the 
District, and they strongly recommend that the bill not be enacted. 

The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there 
is no objection on the part of that office to submission of this report to the 

Very sincerely yours, 

Samuel Spencee, 
President, Board of Commissioners, D. C. 

United States Department of the Interior, 

Office of the Secret art, 
Washinffton 25, D. C, September IS, 1953. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

Chamnan, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Wolverton : This is in response to your request for a report from 
this Department on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dan- 
gers of fluorination of water. 

I recommend that the bill be not enacted. 

H. R. 2341 would prohibit the treatment of any public water supply with any 
fluoride compound by any agency of the United States, including the District of 
Columbia and the Territories and possessions of the United States, or by any 
agency of any State, including any municipality or other political subdivision 
thereof. It would prohibit these agencies also from making available any water 
treated with fluorides for general use in any hospital, post office, military installa- 
tion, or other installations or institutions owned or operated by or on behalf 
of any such agency. 

In connection with the operation of a program for prevention and treatment 
of dental disease among American Indians, this Department has had occasion 
to give considerable study to the effect of fluorine in drinking water. It is the 


opinion of our specialists in this field that the addition of 1.0-1.5 parts per mil- 
lion of fluorine to water supplies produces a beneficial effect upon the oral health 
of individuals consuming such reconstituted waters. Furthermore, we have 
been unable to find any scientific evidence which shows that the ingestion of 
water containing 1.0-1.5 parts per million of available fiuorine ions has any 
deleterious toxicological effect upon the human body. We are much opposed to 
any action which would deprive the American Indian of the health benefits to 
be derived from the carefully controlled usage of fluorides in their drinking 

Several of the Territories under the jurisdiction of this Department are con- 
sidering fluorinating their water supplies, and some have begun the process. 
The Alaska Board of Health has recognized the benefits of fluorinating drinking 
water, and has established procedures which must be followed by Alaskan com- 
munities which choose to utilize this process. At the present time, there are 
three communities considering fluorination in Alaska, and completed plans have 
been received by the board of health for the installation of fluorination equip- 
ment at Anchorage, which is the largest city in Alaska. 

By House Concurrent Resolution No. 64 of the 26th Legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Hawaii, the matter of fluorination of the water supply of Honolulu and 
Hilo was placed before the board of health of the Territory, the board of water 
supply in the city and County of Honolulu, and the board of water supply of 
the County of Hawaii, for their study and report back to the legislature. Com- 
prehensive compilations of source materials, flndiugs, and conclusions have been 
prepared by these boards, and have been submitted to the Legislature of Hawaii 
for consideration. 

In the Virgin Islands, fluorination of water supplies is in the planning stage. 
At present no fluoride compounds are added to the public or semipublic water 
supplies in that territory. American Samoa has done nothing about the fluorina- 
tion of its water supplies, but plans to give the matter consideration because 
of the high percentage of tooth decay among Samoan children. 

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has taken steps toward the fluorination 
of its water supply, based on the evidence contained in various scientific litera- 
ture, and especially on the i-esolutiou approved by the Association of State and 
Territorial Health Officers at its annual meeting held in December 1952. By 
Act No. 376 of 1952, the Puerto Rican Legislature appropriated to the aqueduct 
and sewer authority the sum of $96,000 for the purchase of equipment and ma- 
terials necessary for the fluorination of the water serviced by the metropolitan 
aqueduct system. An appropriation in the sum of $165,000 is being requested 
from the legislature this year for the purchase of equipment and supplies for 
the fluorination of water in other public water systems. The 6-year economic 
plan for 1953-54 to 1958-59 calls for appropriations in the sums of $145,000, 
$169,000, $195,000, $222,000, and $183,000 in successive years for the purchase 
of equipment and materials for broadening the fluorination program. It is 
expected that by the year 1958-59, all major public water systems in Puerto 
Rico will be supplying fluorinated water to consumers. 

In the administration of the Territories of the United States, a steady policy 
has been followed of placing the responsibilities of local self-government in the 
control of the territorial peoples as their political, economic, and social devel- 
opment has warranted. The beneficial result of this policy has been recognized 
generally. Enactment of H. R. 2341 would be a reversal of this beneficial policy 
as far as local public health is concerned. All of the Territories have the human 
resources with the accumulated wisdom, intelligence, and judgment sufficient 
to enable them to determine matters of local public health. We believe this 
opinion is substantiated by the manner in which the several Territories are now 
studying the matter of fluorinating their water supply. 

It would appear also that to the extent H. R. 2341 purports to control State 
action concerning local health matters it would be subject to constitutional 
objections. Such objections are not, of course, within the purview of this 

Therefore, I recommend that H. R. 2341 be not enacted. 

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the sub- 
mission of this report to your committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

Okme Lewis, 
Acting Secretary of the Interior. 



Washington, D. C, May 13, 1953. 

Hou. Charles A. Wolvb:eton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
House of Representatives. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of 
Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H. R, 
2341, 83d Congress, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of 
fluorination of water. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Depart- 
ment of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department 
of Defense thereon. 

The Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is 
opposed to the enactment of H. R. 2341 for the reasons set forth below. 

The bill, H. R. 2841, would prohibit all agencies of the Government of the 
United States, and all agencies of any State or municipality or other political 
subdivision of a State, from treating any public water supply with any fluoride 
compound. Further, it would prohibit the use of such treated water by any 
hospital, post oflSce, military installation, or other installation or institution 
owned or operated by or on behalf of any of the aforesaid agencies. 

The principle of fluorination of certain potable water supplies as a means of 
preventing dental caries in children has been accepted by the house of delegates 
of the American Dental Association (October 1950), by the governing council 
of the American Public Health Association (November 1950), by the Surgeon 
General, Department of the Army (November 1950), by the American Medical 
Association (December 1951), by the United States Public Health Service, and 
by other Federal and State agencies interested in public health. 

In April 1951, the National Research Council convened an Ad Hoc Committee 
on Fluorination of Water Supplies to review the evidence on this subject and to 
prepare an impartial report. Special attention is invited to the conclusions of 
the report which state in part : "In view of these considerations, the committee 
recommends that any community which includes a child population of suflicient 
size, and which obtains its water supply from sources which are free from or 
are extremely low in fluorides, should con.sider the practicability and economic 
feasibility of adjusting the concentration to optimal levels. This adjustment 
should be in accord with climatic factors and a constant chemical control 
should be maintained. With proper safeguards, this procedure appears to be 

Present medical service policy is against the fluorination of water supplies on 
military posts because the number of children on a military post is usually very 
small as compared with the adult population. However, as the controlled 
studies on this subject are continued, there is increasing evidence that older 
populations may also benefit from this practice. If this point is proved, then 
it will be desirable for the Army to fluorinate water at posts where the water 
is deficient in this chemical. 

It is the opinion of this Department that, under certain conditions, the 
fluorination of water .supplies is a public health asset and that legislation 
which would prohibit this practice would be detrimental to the public interests. 
In thi.s connection, it is to be noted that fluorination of public water supplies 
has been accomplished in 703 communities with an estimated population of 
16,500,000, and that scientific studies in these areas indicate that great benefits 
in the reduction of dental caries have been derived from the fluorination of 

For the foregoing reasons, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the 
Department of Defense, recommends that H. R. 2341 be not favorably con- 

The Department of the Army is unable to estimate the fiscal effects of the 
proposed bill. 

This report has been coordinated among the departments and boards of the 
Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the 
Secretary of Defense. 

The Bureau of the Budget has been consulted and advises that there is no 
objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. 
Sincerely yours, 

Robert T. Stex-ens, 
Secretary of the Army. 


Office of the Postmaster General, 

Washington 25, D. C, May 13, 1953. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Cammerce, 
House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
DEii.R Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for a report on H, B. 
2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. 
The Department does not treat drinking water with fluoride and so far as it 
is aware it does not make water so treated available to the public. 

This I>epartment is not in a position to report on this measure because it does 
not have the requisite technical knowledge necessary to formulate an opinion 
concerning the propriety of treating drinking water with fluoride. 

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the 
submission of this report to the committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

C. R. Hook, Jr., 
Deputy Postmaster General. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Washington, January 20, 1954. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Chairman : This letter is in response to your request of February 4, 
1953, for a report on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers 
of fluorination of water. 

The l)ill would categorically prohibit F'ederal, State, or local governmental 
agencies from treating public water supplies with any fluoride compound and 
from making water so treated available for use by or on behalf of any such agency. 
No provision is made with regard to the enforcement of these prohibitions. 

After some years of careful study and observation, including a review of many 
independent investigations, the Public Health Service of this Department arrived 
at the conclusion that the adjustment of the fluoride content of public water 
supplies is a safe, effective, and economical procedure for the partial prevention 
of tooth decay. The Service is continuing? with its own research, with research 
carried on by grants to independent groups, and in its observation of separate 
studies being made by others in order to leave no stone unturned in its vigilance 
to protect the public health and safety of the people of this country. 

It is the view of this Department that the decision on whether to fluoridate 
public water supplies should continue to rest with the local communities. We 
believe that they are entirely competent to make such decisions and that Federal 
intervention, either to require or to prohibit fluoridation, would not be justiflable. 
We therefore recommend that H. R. 2341 not be enacted by tJie Congress. 
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submis- 
sion of this report to your committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

Oveta Gulp Hobby, 


Executive Office of The Peesident, 

Bureau of The Budget, 
Washington 25 D. C, May 7, 1954. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

(Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
House of Representatives, Washington 25 D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Chairman : This will acknowledge your letter of April 20, 1954, 
requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect 
the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. 

Tliis bill would make it illegal for Federal, State, or local agencies to treat 
public water supplies with any fluoride compound and to distribute such water 
for use by the public. 

The treatment of water with fluorides has been given extensive study by the 
Public Health Service and many independent agencies. As a result of these 
studies the conclusion has been reached that the proper amount of fluoridation 


of public water supplies is a safe, effective, and economical means for the partial 
prevention of tooth decay. The principle of fluoridation of potable water sup- 
plies as a means of preventing dental caries was endorsed by the house of dele- 
gates of the American Dental Association in October 1950, by the governing 
council of the American Public Health Association in October 1950, by tne 
Surgeon General, Public Health Service in April 1951, and by the American 
Medical Association in December 1951. 

Furthermore, the actual adoption of the practice of water fluoridation is, of 
course, a matter for decision by the local community and should remain so. It 
is believed that the States are quite competent to make such a decision without 
Federal intervention. 

For these reasons, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against the enact- 
ment of H. R. 2341. 

Sincerely yours, 

Donald R. Belcher, 

Assistant Director 

The Chairman. We are beginning hearings this morning on H. R. 
2341, a bill which would prohibit the United States Government, the 
government of the District of Columbia, every State, and every mu- 
nicipality, or other political subdivision of a State, from treating any 
public water supply with any fluoride compound, or from making 
any water so treated available for general use in any hospital, post 
office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned 
or operated by the United States Government, the government of the 
District of Columbia, and State, and any municipality or other politi- 
cal subdivision of a State. 

The first witness this morning will be the Honorable Roy W. Wier, 
a Member of Congress from Minnesota who introduced the bill by 


Mr. Wier. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the 
sponsor of this bill, which was introduced a little over a year ago, my 
role here this morning and my participation will be very limited, 
because I know that there are 2 or 3 scheduled to be heard this morn- 
ing who are very anxious to be heard so that they may get away to 
attend to other tasks. I am a layman in this field, but the introduc- 
tion of this bill has been of great interest and concern to me. This is a 
very controversial bill. I want to assure the committtee of that. 

During my 6 years here, Mr. Chairman, I have received more mail 
and communications and material for the bill now before you than on 
any other subject or issue pending in the Congress during those 6 
years. I was tempted this morning to bring over the file of communi- 
cations that I have received from all corners of this Nation, from 
people of many walks of life, many conscientious and sincere people; 
likewise, many people who have spent a long time in the field of 
medicine. I have proponents for this bill coming from the medical 
profession ; the dental profession ; the chemical profession ; the engi- 
neering profession ; and those professions related to this subject. It 
is not one-sided by any stretch of the imagination, as I think will be 
brought out here during the process of your hearings. 

My introduction of this legislation was prompted by a limited num- 
ber of people in my own community, and then further impetus was 
given to the controversial nature and justification for this bill when 


I came to Washington 2 years ago and met with a number of people 
here in the District who have been in this field for some time. I have 
been working with a committee in the District of Columbia headed by 
a Miss Vera Adams, president, and Mr. Claude Palmer, a member of 
the board of directors. The committee is known as the National Com- 
mittee Against Fluoridation. They have been advising with me, 
giving me considerable information, and lending their support to this 

With all of this information and contacts and my own thinking 
through, if I could lend any point in my observations as a result of 
my experience in the past year, I would advise the committee that in 
my opinion I would feel that the Federal Public Health Service has 
got a little overzealous in this field and has gone overboard, because 
this is something that is not to be decided within a period of a month 
or a year. The results from a long study and research, documented 
evidence, will be presented to the committee this morning, and in the 
interest of the American people, I would feel that the Federal Govern- 
n^ent — and I say Federal Government because here a Federal agency 
seems to be the center of the sponsorship of fluoridation, and so my 
criticism would be leveled at the lack of caution with which that 
agency has moved in this field. I think that will be covered likewise. 

Mr. Cliairman, I know Mr. Ford has to get to Jacksonville, Fla., as 
soon as he can, and I do not want to take too much time, because you 
have a long list of very capable and very professional people here. 

I want to take this occasion, Mr. Chairman, to thank you and the 
members of the committee, for affording these thousands and thou- 
sands of people in the United States an opportunity to be heard and 
to offer to your committee and the Congress their views, their reactions, 
and their findings on this most important question of the health of the 
American people. 

With that I will close. I will go to my own committee now on the 
physically handicapped, and again thank you in behalf of all these 
thousands of people. 

Before I leave I want to introduce to you the sponsors of this meet- 
ing who will take over, and from the proponents' side they have given 
you a list of the sj)eakers that have been invited to appear here, both 
as to who they are and as to the position in which they will speak. We 
would like the proponents to have the first half of the time. 

The Chairman. We shall have to determine our procedure. It is 
our intention to hear the proponents this morning. We may hear 
some of them this afternoon. We want to make certain that both 
sides have an opportunity to be heard. We do not know what the 
situation will be with respect to the House floor, and for that reason 
I want to make certain that the people who have come a long distance 
will have an opportunity to be heard, 

Mr. WiER. Tliat is right, and they paid their own way. 

I want to introduce the people who will manage the proponents' side 
of this legislation. 

First, there is Miss Vera Adams, representing the .National Com- 
mittee Against Fluoridation. ! 

Then there is Mr. Claude Palmer, one of the membeirs of the board 
of directors of the District of Columbia Committee Against Fluorida- 
tion, who will rather bear the burden of the management of the pro- 
ponents of this legislation before the committee. 


The Chairman. We thank you, Mr. Wier, for appearing here and 
for the time you have taken in preparing the list of witnesses you have 
submitted to us. 

In order to accommodate our colleague, Mr. Ford, who speaks in 
opposition, we will hear him at this time. 


Mr. Ford. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, initially 
let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to present my point 
of view at this time. It is a very great accommodation for me and I 
appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I represent the Fifth Congressional District in 
Michigan, which includes the city of Grand Kapids, a community of 
176,000 people, and the city of Grand Haven, Mich., a community of 
approximately 8,000 people, both of which do have fluoridation at 
the present time. 

Grand Rapids, I believe, was in the forefront in this program. 
According to information provided me, the community has used 
fluoridation since January 1, 1945. The city of Grand Haven has 
used fluoridation since October 1952. 

Another community in my district is Holland, Mich., and although 
they have not used a similar program to those that exist in Grand 
Rapids and Grand Haven, they do have some variation of the utiliza- 
tion of fluoridation. 

I am testifying this morning because in my congressional district, 
and in particular the communities that I mentioned, there is a very, 
very strong feeling that we in those communities should have the right 
to decide for ourselves whether or not we, as a community, should use 
fluoridation. The program, in our estimation, has been successful in 
the communities which have used it. There has been in the past 9 
years considerable testing conducted in the city of Grand Rapids as a 
result of this fluoridation program. I have a number of documents 
here which indicate the alleged success of this program, and I would 
like to give you some of the alleged results of fluoridation in the city 
of Grand Rapids. 

I am now quoting from a paper by Francis A. Arnold, Jr., D. D. S., 
and Trendley Dean, D. D. S., and John W. Knutson, D. D. S., 
D. P. H., on the Effect of Fuoridated Public Water Supplies on Dental 
Caries Prevalence. It is a 7-year study of the situation in Grand 
Rapids, Mich., which, as I indicated, does have fluoridation, compar- 
ing it to Muskegon, Mich., a community which does not have fluorida- 
tion. The summary from this paper is as follows, and I will quote 
from it : 

The methodology and results after 7 years of the Grand Rapids-Muskegon 
study have been described. The 1951 results on continuous resident children 
after 614 years of fluoridation of the Grand Rapids water supply indicate : 

1. There has been a reduction in dental caries rates in permanent teeth of 
Grand Rapids children ranging from 66.6 percent in 6-year-old children to 18.1 
percent in the 16-year age group. Similar results have been obtained regarding 
the deciduous teeth. 

2. Similar reductions have not been observed in Muskegon where the water 
.s<ipply remained "fluoride fi-ee" until the last 3 months of this study i)eriod. 


3. This change in dental caries rates at Grand Rapids was also reflected in 
observations based on objective assessment, that is, a reduction in the number 
of missing teeth. 

4. A comparison of the 1951 caries rates in Grand Rapids vpith those of Aurora, 
111., shows that, insofar as can be determined to date, the use of a fluoridated 
water gives the same beneflcial effects as does the use of a natural fluoride 
water of similar concentration. 

The mention of the city of Aurora, 111., I think hits the nub of our 
objection to this legislation. The city of Aurora, 111., through natural 
causes, has a certain amount of fluorine in the water they use in that 
community. We in the city of Grand Rapids and in Grand Haven, 
by local action, decided that we wanted to have the same advantage 
that the people in the city of Aurora, 111., have for our own health. 
As I understand, this bill, if approved as is, would prevent us, a local 
community of Michigan, from doing what we want to do ourselves for 
our own health's sake, based on whatever judgment we as local citizens 
deem necessary. 

It is almost incomprehensible to me that a local community would be 
precluded from making a decision of this sort itself if it, as a com- 
munity, believes there would be certain advantages from such a pro- 
gram. I think that is the nub of the question. 

I have a number of communications from reputable dentists in my 
community. I would not fill the record with those unless the chairman 
so desires. I do have, however, a communication from the Grand 
Rapids Chamber of Commerce which I would like to insert in the 
record without objection. (Other communications will be filed with 
the committee.) 

The Chairman. You have that privilege. As to the other com- 
munications to which you referred, we have received a great many 
letters, telegrams, and petitions, both for and against this proposed 
legislation, and it would be impossible to give recognition to all of 
them in the record, but in order to present the views of your consti- 
tuents, I think you might make reference to them. 

Mr. Ford. Thank you very much. 

(The letter referred to is as follows :) 

Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, 

Cfrand Rapids, Mich., May 22, 1954. 

Subject : H. R. 2341, fluoridation of water supplies. 

Hon. Gerald R. Ford, Jr., 

United States House of Represetitatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Congressman Ford : The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce is opposed 
to the passage of H. R. 2341 which would prohibit fluoridation of drinking water. 

We believe the author of the bill must have based his bill on much of the same 
erroneous interpretation of records and unfounded accusations of which this 
organization has many examples in regard to Grand Rapids. 

We urge the fullest investigation and opportunity for presentation of evidence 
in favor of fluoridation and refuting unwarranted, unfounded, and malicious and 
false reports of adverse effects. The later have included, falsely, increased 
juvenile delinquency, moral degeneration, heart, brain, respiratory, and circula- 
tory disorders and deaths, and other dreanied-up and trumped-up charges, all of 
which are disputed by the records. Even abortions were alleged to have in- 
creased, which is similarly belied by the records. 

There seems to be a mass hysteria about the subject which should be dispelled 
along with the religious and other prejudices in regard to the subject. 

Michigan and Grand Rapids have a tremendous industrial as well as health 
stake in this matter. 


No action should be taken on this bill until the fullest hearings have been held 
and the facts have publicly demonstrated that this bill should not pass. 

Alex T. McFadyen, 
Executive Secretary. 

Mr. Ford. There is one point that may conceivably be raised subse- 
quently in this record. The assertion has been made that the vital 
statistics of Grand Eapids, Mich., show an increased number of deaths 
from heart disease, intracranial lesions, and nephritis since the pro- 
gram of fluoridation was initiated. 

The facts on this particular phase of the controversy are as follows : 

This statement presents an erroneous implication because it is based on a 
comparison of 1944 data for the city of Grand Rapids — 

which, incidentally, was before the fluoridation program began— 

with 1948 data for the whole of Kent County in which Grand Rapids is situated. 
Reliable population data for this area are available from official agencies in 
Grand Rapids and in the State of Michigan and are based on an intimate knowl- 
edge of shifts of population in and out of the city. 

Actually, changes in the death rates in Grand Rapids have not been significantly 
different than for the country as a whole. A claimed increase in the number of 
deaths from heart disease in 1949 is not a fact but is due to a 1949 revision 
in the classification in recording deaths. 

I think that particular statement is important for the record because 
I have heard on the floor of the House allegations made that the 
statistics in Grand Rapids and Kent County prove beyond a question 
of a doubt that fluoridation resulted in an increased death rate in 
certain areas. 

In closing my statement I would like to reemphasize that our objec- 
tion to this legislation is that the Federal Government should dictate 
to us what we as communities can do. If this legislation is enacted 
as it is, it would preclude us, a community in the United States, from 
deciding whether or not we want to derive the same benefits that a city 
like Aurora, 111., has where they have flourine in their water from 
natural causes. It should be up to us, a community of 176,000, to 
make the decision as to whether or not we want to implement our 
water supplies so that we can get whatever benefits now accrue from 
natural causes. 

I shall be very glad to answer any questions. 

The Chairman. Any questions? Mr. Heselton. 

Mr. Heselton. I am sorry I could not be here during all of your 
statement. Did you indicate when Grand Rapids adopted fluori- 

Mr. Ford. Grand Rapids started using fluorine in its water supply 
on January 1, 1945. 

Mr. Heselton. Was that as a result of vote of the city council or 
the community as a whole ? 

Mr. Ford. The decision was made by the governing fathers of tlie 
community. No effort was made in Grand Rapids to stir up a problem 
with the electorate. It was purely an administrative decision based 
on factual data presented to the proper city authorities. We have 
had no trouble whatsoever in that community as a result of this pro- 
gram being initiated. 

Mr. Heselton. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? Mr. Priest. 


Mr. Priest. Mr. Ford, I have approached this legislation with an 
open mind in an eif ort to get all the information I can on both sides of 
the question. I will be particularly interested in the scientific testi- 
mony that is to be presented here. You take a position that is inlier- 
ently a position I usually take, that is, that your community of 175,000, 
which is about the same size as my community, should have the right 
to make such a decision without Federal intervention. I could easily 
see how perhaps a strange interpretation might bring the Federal Gov- 
ernment into the held, particularly with reference to water supply for 
our Federal installations within a city. Other than that, and with the 
possible exception of a project that might be sponsored by a local public 
health service cooperating with the Federal Public Health Service, it 
is difficult for me to see a constitutional basis for Federal Government 
action in a situation of this sort. Have you given some thought to that 
phase of it i 

Mr. Ford. Mr. Priest, frankly, I have not had an opportunity to 
thoroughly investigate the constitutionality of this legislation. I 
would, from my experiences as a lawyer, say there might justifiably 
be a serious question as to the constitutionality of this proposal. I 
would, however, leave that up to those who are constitutional lawyers 
by experience. My prime objection, as I have indicated earlier, is the 
attempt by the Federal Government to tell the people in our Nation 
who are mature and who 1 think are as wise as some of the Federal 
fathers, what they can or cannot do. I would certainly object to any 
legislation that would extend the omnipotence of the Federal Govern- 

Mr. Priest. It is largely a question of philosophy rather than con- 
stitutionality or legality, and 1 must say 1 share that feeling with you 
in general. I think we do better with a minimum of Federal Govern- 
ment direction rather than a maximum. 

Mr. Ford. I might say that it would be most unjustifiable for any- 
one to allege that responsible city officials in any community would 
seek to undertake a program that would be harmful and detrimental 
to the health of the people in that community. 

Mr. Priest. We have in my own State, although not in the district 
I represent, a situation similar to what you described in the town of 
Pulaski, Tenn., the county seat of Giles County, a town of about 6,000 
population. The water supply of that town has a natural content of 
lluorine. I have received some very interesting statistics which I hope 
to put in the record with reference to a comparison of vital statistics 
in that town with other nearby towns that do not have that natural 
supply and have not added any artificial supply. As I expressed to 
you in the beginning, I am approaching this legislation with an open 
mind because 1 have received such positive statements on both sides 
of the question. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? Mr. Springer. 

Mr. Springer. May I ask my colleague if he is a lawyer * 

Mr. Ford. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Springer. I am wondering under what section of the Constitu- 
tion the proponents are justifying this proposed legislation ? 

Mr. Ford. I suppose the general welfare provision of the Federal 
Constitution. Frankly, I have not gone into the constitutionality of 

48391—54 2 


this proposed legislation. My firm objection rests on different 

Mr. Springer. There is no doubt that anything that has to do with 
health is under this committee. The point I am trying to find out is 
just how you would regulate health. I believe I will yield back, Mr. 
Chairman, until I look into this further. 

The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Harris. 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Ford, is not the basic philosophy behind this legis- 
lation that those who propose to use fluorine for this purpose need to 
be protected from their own misgivings as to what this w^ill do? 

Mr. Ford. I think that is true, but let us see if we could carry that 
philosophy to the ultimate extreme. 

Mr. Harris. In other words, is not the basic philosophy behind 
those who are sponsoring this type of legislation, that even if the 
people of Grand Rapids, Mich., might decide themselves that they 
want to use it, they do not know what is best for them and the pro- 
ponents of the legislation know what is best for them and want to 
protect them from their own ill-advised feeling? 

Mr. Ford. I think that quite definitely is the philosophy of tlie 
legislation. May I say that if you cari-y that philosophy to the ex- 
treme, however, and if you want to be perfectly honest, you have to 
add certain words to the legislation. The bill should say that com- 
munities shall not be able to treat any public water supply with any 
fluoride compound, and you must add to that that any community 
must remove from its water supply any natural fluorines which al- 
ready exist. Otherwise you are being completely inconsistent. If 
a community that has fluorine in its water naturally is permited to go 
along and use that water supply, it is doing something harmful and 
deleterious to the public just as much as any community that adds 
fluorine to its water supply. So I think to be perfectly fair and honest 
if people believe in this philosophy they should also seek to remove as 
well as prevent the addition of fluorine. 

Mr. Harris. Do you know whether or not there is a religious back- 
ground attached to this proposal ? 

Mr. Ford. Not that I know of. 

The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr, Pelly. 

Mr. Pelly. Regardless of the merits or demerits on a scientific 
basis, have you had occasion to observe the tendency in our Public 
Health Service to accomplish by policy and regulation objectives 
which are beyond their scope ? 

Mr. Ford. Mr. Pelly, I am not qualified to answer that question. 
All I know is that in the communities in my district which use this 
program, I think it was more or less locally sponsored. I know it has 
been carried on under the supervision of the local public health au- 
thorities. I also know that certain observers have come in from the 
Federal Public Health Service to make checks as to the success or 
failure of the progi-am, but we instituted the program, we have car- 
ried it out, and we like it, and we would not like the Feleral (xovern- 
ment telling us that we should not have it. 

Mr. Pelly. Do you think it is right that the Public Health Service 
should stimulate, encourage, and do everything they can to promote 
local fluoridation as a matter of departmental policy without its being 
within the realm of the desire of the Congress ? 


Mr. Ford. I do not think the Public Health Service or any other 
agency should be a propagandizing agency for any pet project that 
they have, but I think they have a responsibility to make what scien- 
tific data that they have available, available for communities which 
e:j:press an interest. 

Mr. Pelly. Here is a program that is very controversial and on 
which scientists themselves seem to disagree, and it seems to me that 
the Public Health Service has taken upon itself to decide that it is 
scientifically justifiable and they have actually carried on a program 
of propaganda. I myself have no knowledge or basis for saying 
whether the program is good or bad, but I do object to the departments 
of Government accomplishing by regulation what is not the intent 
of the law. 

Mr. Ford. I certainly concur in that general observation, but from 
my own experience and observation in my own community I doubt 
if anybody but the local people decided that they wanted the pro- 
gram. We decided it; we like it; and we certainly object to Uncle 
Sam telling us we cannot do it unless he wants to tell the communities 
that have natural fluorine they cannot use it either. 

Mr. Pelly. We had some legislation recently dealing with the 
grants-in-aid program, and we were told if the Public Health Service 
desired to do so, with the Surgeon General's approval, they could take 
the grants-in-aid funds and finance fluoridation in a community. It 
seemed to me that was going pretty far. 

Mr. Priest. Will the gentleman yield ? I believe it had to be with 
the approval of the local community. They could not go ahead with- 
out the approval and cooperation of the local community. 

Mr. Pelly. I would say they would not necessarily have required 
local approval but would have been financing a research program 
which would not require local approval or State approval. 

Mr. Priest. It seemed to me that even in the beginning it required 
the cooperation and approval of the local community or the State, or 
whatever subdivision of government was involved. 

Mr. Pelly. I would certainly defer to my distinguished colleague 
on health legislation, because he has had great experience in that. 

The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Younger. 

Mr. Younger. Mr. Ford, it is your idea, I gather, that you believe 
u local problem should be settled locally. Do you also believe it 
would be wise to have a local vote on the subject ? 

Mr. Ford. I think there should be a local vote if the local com- 
munity thinks that is proper. If a local community does not want a 
vote, I do not think the Federal Government should impose its will 
in that regard either. I think that would be definitely beyond the 
authority of the Federal Government. 

Mr. Younger. There is no legislation that you know of about put- 
ting chlorine in water, is there ? 

Mr. Ford. I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. Younger. That is all. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Bennett. Have you given any thought to the question of 
whether the Public Health Service should be restricted in its activities 
in selling the idea of fluoridated water to States and localities? It 
has come to my attention that the Public Health Service over the 


past few years has devoted considerable time to sending people around 
to States and localities in order to sell them on the advisability of 
fluoridating their water. I am inclined toward your view that the 
matter should be within the discretion of the local community, but 
I am wondering if it might not be advisable to give consideration .to 
whether the United States Public Health Service should be limited 
in its activities to sell this program and to try to convince commu- 
nities that are otherwise not interested that they should have it. In 
other words, should the United States Public Health Service be 
restricted in spending public money to go out and try to sell the 
program ? 

Mr. Ford. Mr. Bennett, I personally feel about the activities of 
the Public Health Service in this field as I strongly felt about the 
public-housing people going out in local communities and trying to 
impose upon local communities low-rent public housing. I violently 
opposed that, and I suspect I would oppose any propaganda program 
by the Public Health Service in this field. Let me say I am not 
qualified to say whether or not fluoridation is successful except from 
what information is given to me. I am not a doctor or a scientist. 
But the proper officials in the communities I mentioned, who are 
technicians, do believe there are benefits from the program and they 
have convinced the govening fathers that it should be used. I do 
not believe the Public Health Service initiated the action the commu- 
nities have taken. In the case of Grand Haven, I suspect that because 
of the success of the program in Grand Rapids, they followed suit 
some years later. 

Mr. Bennett. I am perfectly willing to leave the matter up to 
the people who are directly concerned. On the other hand, I question 
the wisdom of the Federal Government appropriating money for an 
agency to try to propagandize in favor of a program. In view of 
the controversial nature of the subject and the violent objection that 
many people and many communities have, I doubt the wisdom of 
having any agency of the Federal Government going out and trying 
to sell it. 

Mr. Ford. It is pretty hard to try to draw a line of distinction. 
Will we get into the same problem as to whether we should adopt 
the program of immunization against poliomyelitis ? The local people 
should decide whether they want their children inoculated, or what- 
ever the term is. 

Mr. Bennett. Once you authorize the Federal Government to spend 
money to sell a program, you are giving that program the blessing 
of the Federal Government and whether it is good or bad or whether 
it is desirable in a particular community or not, you are nevertheless 
making a Federal program of it. 

Mr. Ford. I think this committee probably would be the best vehicle 
to determine whether or not the Public Health Service has gone 
beyond its proper function. 

Mr. Bennett. That is all. 

Mr. Heselton. Have you seen the reports from the departments 
on this legislation ? 

Mr. Ford. No, sir. 


Mr. Heselton. With reference to the question of constitutionality 
raised by Mr. Springer, I would like to quote this sentence from the 
report of the Department of the Interior : 

It would appear also that to the extent II. R. 2341 purports to control State 
action concerning local health matters it would be subject to constitutional 

I thought )'ou might like to have that particular expression in your 

Also, I thought you would be interested in this quotation from the 
report of the Bureau of tlie Budget : 

Furthermore, the actual adoption of the practice of water fluoridation is, of 
course, a matter for decision by the local community and should remain so. 
It is believed that the States are quite competent to make such a decision without 
Federal intervention. 

So apparently there is no disposition on their part to impose a Fed- 
eral decision on the local communities. 

Mr. Springer. I have been looking at the Constitution here, and the 
only section which has to do with providing for the common defense 
and general welfare would be section 8. I see nothing in the Consti- 
tution relating to the word "health." I do not think health was con- 
sidered when the Constitution was written, and there is no amend- 
ment that would bear on this at all. The question that arose in my 
mind was, if you can regulate tliis, why could you not regulate every- 
thing having to do with public health in any city ? Why not regulate 
the size of a hospital in a particular city and how the hospital shall 
be conducted if we have this power over health ? That is the point 
that has arisen in my own mind. I do ]iot know what the decisions 
say. I think whoever wrote the bill tried to get around the consti- 
tutionality by these words — 

or make any water so treated available for general use in any hospital, post 
office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned or operated 
by or on behalf of any such agency. 

I do not know; they might have some control over a post office or 
military installation, altliougli it does appear to me that is stretching 
it to an extreme point. This is just a curbstone opinion, but looking 
at the Constitution, I do not see anything in the Constitution that 
gives power over health. 

The Chairman. Any further questions? 

We thank you, Mr. Ford, for your appearance here this morning. 
We are glad to have your views. 

Mr. Ford. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I have a list of witnesses prepared by Mr. Wier 
of those interested in this bill, and the order in which those names 
have been given to me would seem to indicate it was the intention 
to call Mr. Claude Palmer next. Is that right? 

Mr. Palmer. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Palmer, if you will give your name and the 
position that you occupy and for whom you speak here this morning, 
we will be glad to hear your testimony. 



Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. C'liairman and jientlenieii. 

I am Claude N. Palmer. I am a director of the National Committee 
Against Fluoridation, which is incorporated under the laws of the 
District of Columbia. 

I am employed as director of trade relations by a trade association 
in the fresh fruit and vegetable business. My appearance here has 
nothing to do with my commercial employment. I am appearing here 
solely as a member and director of the gi'oup opposed to fluoriclation 
in Washington. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission we would like to change the 
order of our witnesses and have our counsel, Mr. Vincent Kleinfeld, 
follow me if that is agreeable. 

The Chairman. I would like to call to your attention, Mr. Palmer, 
and others waiting to testify either for or against this bill, that the 
tremendous schedule of work that this committee has before it has 
required it to fix a limitation of 3 days for the hearings on this bill, 
and w^e wish to hear during those 3 days those who are for and against, 
so that we would ask each of you to conserve time so that w^e may hear 
as many witnesses as possible. Otherwise, it will be necessary to take 
the statements of the witneses and make them a part of the record 
without their personal appearance. I might say in that connection 
we find very frequently witnesses prefer to do that, so that if there are 
any witnesses here today for or against this legislation who would like 
to present a statement and have it made a part of the record, if they 
would kindly notify the clerk, we will see that that is done. 

Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my intention and 
I think the intention of other witnesses for the Wier bill. I have 
filed a written statement with the clerk, and I intend to cover the, 
salient points briefly, which I have in note form. 

The Chairman. In the event you do abbreviate your statement, 
you may rest assured that your full statement will be made a part of 
the record. 

Mr. Palmer. Thank you, sir. 

If it is proper, I would like to say just a word or two about the 
testimony of the previous witness. Certain of his statements I am 
sure our group would agree with wholeheartedly. 

Do you mind my standing, Mr. Chairman ? I speak a little better 

The previous witness said that the results of fluoridation in Grand 
Rapids were "'alleged.''' He ug,ed the word "alleged" several times. 
We find that most of the reports on the brilliant results of fluorida- 
tion on children's teeth are not based on a very scientific basis. 

Also, the witness said that this is a matter for the States and local 
communities to decide. AVe would agree with this wholeheartedly if 
it were not for the fact that as some of the members of this committee 
have said, the Federal Government is already into that problem up 
to its neck. The Public Health Service seems to be the sparkplug 
that generates the desire for fluoridation in communities throughout 
the country and as far away as Alaska. 


The previous witness has referred to Grand Rapids as a city of 
176,000 people. If the people of voting age in the city of Grand 
Rapids had received information on both sides of this question, not 
merely the information that the United States Public Health Service 
and the local health officials wished to give them, if they had received 
a fair appraisal of the question of fluoridation on both sides, I doubt 
very much that Grand Rapids would have fluoridation because, as 
your colleague, Dr. Miller, once said on the floor of the House, almost 
every time the question of fluoridation has come to a public vote, it 
has been defeated. We know of only one city, San Francisco, where 
a vote on the question won. In that case most of the people who 
voted for it thought they were voting for the continuance of the use 
of chlorine in the water as a purifier. 

1 am not a scientist. I have been a student of this subject for about 
2 years. There are volumes of printed literature on the subject, ex- 
cerpts from some of which I am attaching to my prepared statement. 

Just as a matter of information, the organization I am speaking for 
was the result of the efforts of two freedom-loving women who per- 
haps did not have so much objection to the presence of a certain amount 
of fluorine in public drinking water as they did to the fact it was be- 
ing forced on tliem without their consent. Their objective was to 
give the public both sides of the story and they expected the District 
government to cooperate. However, whenever membei"s of the Dis- 
trict govermnent were invited to appear, representatives of the Dis- 
trict government refused to cooperate. In one radio broadcast of a 
half hour, 15 minutes were to be given to us and 15 minutes to the 
other side, and the local dental authority said he would not appear, that 
he i)referred to let sleeping dogs lie. I do not know whom he was re- 
ferring to as the dogs, but they were not there. 

We have had various requests from various parts of the country, and 
from as far away as Alaska, to form a national organization which 
could spearhead this drive against compulsory fluoridation, and re- 
cently we changed the name from Citizens Committee on Fluoridation 
to National Committee Against Fluoridation. We were against this 
before, but some people did not quite understand that. 

We have found great disagreement among the proponents of fluori- 
dation as to the quantity, as to the method, and as to the results. You 
will find some disagreement among our witnesses. Some of the 
witnesses who will follow me may disagree with some of the things I 
say. That is because the whole subject is up in the air. It is unknown. 
Science does not know the effect of fluorine, even in minute quantities, 
over a life span. The question of deaths from heart disease and 
nephritis in Grand Rapids was brought up. We will not claim that 
the fluoridation of water had any effect in the deaths from those 
chronic diseases, but it cannot be proved that it did not. 

In my prepared statement there are several references to the chem- 
ical properties of fluorine and its derivatives. I want to read one 
paragraph from an advertisement of the International Nickel Co., 
which manufactures equipment for the handling of chemicals and 
apparently at last felt it had discovered a way to handle fluorine. The 
text is brief, and I quote : 

Imagine, if you can, an element so tierce it burns up steel. One that claws its 
way through firebrick, makes water burn like alcohol, destroys almost every- 


thing it touches. That's fluorine for you. And for over 200 years, chemists 
racked their brains to find some material that would hold fluorine for even a 
few minutes' study. Numerous materials were tried. Most went up in a flash. 

That is why, gentlemen, we believe it is unfair to introduce into 
our water supply, for the benefit of a small fraction of the popula- 
tion, requiring everyone of every age and condition of health to con- 
sume it on a life-long basis. 

Now, I am resuming my prepared statement concerning the policy 
of fluoridation by itself. That has been brought up a number of times 
by members of this committee. 

We know very little of what the United States Public Health 
Service is doing, because the United States Public Health Service 
does not publish a statement, so far as I know, of how it is going about 
the job of promoting fluoridation. 

We have been told of flying squadrons of bright young chemists, 
bright young scientists who have gone from city to city, meeting 
with chambers of commerce, boards of education, parent-teachers 
associations, medical and dental scientists, to tell them the bright side 
of flouridation, that will preserve the kiddies' teeth and I grant you 
that anything that is for the children, of course, has a strong emo- 
tional appeal. 

We find that State health departments, dental societies, and 
others have joined in this cry; and we find that also in some of these 
institutions, having research projects and other projects which are 
financed by grants in aid of which the United States Public Health 
Service holds the purse strings, there may be no analogy between 
those, but we have found, gentlemen, that scientific witnesses who 
appeared before the Delaney Committee 2 years ago and were bitter 
in their denunciation of fluoridation are now unwilling to testify 
before this group, or now find it inconvenient. The inference is 
drawn that inasmuch as each of the institutions with which these 
witnesses are connected is receiving a grant-in-aid of some kind, that 
while, personally, no pressure may have been brought to appear may 
be inspired by a wish not to offend the United States Public Health 

Gentlemen, much of the objection to compulsory mass life-long 
fluoridation is based upon the question of toxicity, to the poisonous 
or injurious nature of fluorine taken in small quantities over a long 
period of time. 

Something more than 2 years ago there was held here in Washington 
under the auspices of the United States Public Health Service and the 
Children's Bureau what was known as the Fourth Conference of State 
Medical Officers. A printed report of the proceedings was available 
for a time, but seems to have disappeared pretty much. Anyone who 
reads that with an open mind, I think, behind closed doors certain 
officers of the United States Public Health Service, and certain State 
health officers laid themselves open. 

For instance, the spokesman for fluoridation was one Dr. F. A. Bull, 
director of dental education for the Wisconsin State Department of 
Health, and in one place, and I am quoting, he said — Dr. Bull was 
talking about the toxicity of fluorine, and said : 

When they take us at our word, they make awful liars of u.s. 


I would not use that word "liars" if it were not in an official Gov- 
ernment statement. 

I would like, with your permission, to quote just a little more from 
Dr. Bull, who occupied practically the entire morning and was intro- 
duced by Dr. Knudson, formerly of the United States Public Health 

Dr. Bull stated : 

If you can — I say if you can, because five times we have not been able to do 
it — keep fluoridation from ?:oing to a referendum. After you have just a little 
experience, you will find you can walk into a mayor's office, after about three 
sentences, you will know whether he is for fluoridation or against it. 

Then going on, Dr. Bull says : 

Now, in regard to toxicity, I note that Dr. Bain — 

Dr. Bain was the lady doctor representing the Children's Bureau — 

used the term "adding sodium fluoride'' we never do that. That's rat poison. 

And I would not use the term ''rat poison" either, if it were not in an 
official statement by a pro-fluoridationist. 
Continuing with the statement : 

You add fluorides ; never mind that sodium fluoride business because in most 
instances we are not adding sodium fluoride anyhow. All of those things give 
the opposition something to pick at and they have enough to pick out without 
our giving them any more. But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't 
give you the answer on it. After all, you know fluoridated water isn't toxic. 
But when the other fellows says it is, it's diflScult to answer him. I can prove 
that we don't know the answer to that one, because we nad a city of 18,000 that 
was fluoridating the water for 6 or 8 months. A campaign was started by organ- 
ized opposition on the grovind of toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they 
threw out fluoridation. 

Gentlemen, there is an example of scientists being unwilling to let 
the public decide ; as the gentleman who preceded me said, if you let 
the community decide, all right. But if the Federal Government is 
providing one of its agencies with money to propagandize fluorida- 
tion, right or wrong, let the Federal Government provide an equal 
sum of money to give the opposition information, and there is plenty 
of it. 

Now, I am asking in my prepared statement that fluoridation live 
up to its claims. We have reports of pilot experiments at Newburgh, 
N. Y., Grand Rapids, Mich., Saginaw, Mich., Evanston, 111., and there 
are probably others. 

Now, we say the statistics, and I will give you the reason for that 
also a little later on, that the statistics received from these pilot ex- 
periments are misleading in that they do not go below surface indi- 
cations. We say also that the beneficial results obtained in the pilot 
cities, where fluoridation was compared with nonfluoridation cities, 
is probably deceptive, because other methods than the fluorine w^ere 

Now, to get at some real statistics that we can rely on, I would like 
to compare the two cities of Brantford, and Toronto, Canada. In 
Brantford, a 31 percent improvement was announced by the city health 
authorities after 6 years of fluoridation ; that is 31 percent less decay, 
filled teeth or missing teeth. 

In Toronto, during the same period, which did not fluoridate its 
water, an improvement of 45.3 percent was reported by the city health 


authorities. Thus comparing the 2 percentages, Toronto showed 46 
percent better result with cliildren than fluoridated children. Then 
the city authorities in Toronto said it is simple ; we merely taught them 
proper hygiene ; we taught them proper diet; we taught them exercise, 
and we taught them how to brush their teeth, thoroughly, regularly, 
and properly, to avoid sweets, to avoid carbonated drinks, and to eat 
the right sort of foods. That will go hand in hand with any reason- 
able public health measure that has for its aim the saving of the 
children's teeth. 

Now fluoridation is prescribed; it is prescribed by primarily the 
United States Public Health Service, as a nationwide prescription, 
although their scientists differ. Some say as little as one-half of 1 
part per million is injurious; some say that one part is helpful, and 
not injurious; some say 1.2 to 1.5 percent. They do not agree, and 
I do not believe that they know. 

We would like to know, granting that the recommended amount of 
fluorine is correct, we would like to know how accurately that pre- 
scription is filled. When you gentlemen get a prescription from your 
doctor, you take it to a competent pharmacist to have it filled. We 
have a little statistics on that. But an article appearing in Water- 
works and Sewage magazine signed by the sanitary engineer of the 
city of Charlotte, N. C., in which a table of differences of fluorine 
content in samples of water taken each month for 12 months from 
August 1950 — -from September 1950 through August 1951, showed 
a difference of as much as 15 parts per million above the accepted 
dosage to 35 percent below, or a difference in range from top to 
bottom of 50 one- hundredths part. In other words, half of the 
prescribed dose. 

The findings of the water department were also checked by the 
health department separately, by the Charlotte Water District, and 
by an Army base in that area which drew its water from the Char- 
lotte district. Each 1 of the 4 cities that made this test differed from 
the other materially ; some ran even higher than the 15 percent shown 
by the water-plant test. In no single month was there complete 
agreement of all four tests. And what I think the public should be 
told is when there is an excess of fluorine in the water over the pre- 
scribed dosage, where does it come from? And when tliere is less 
than the prescribed dose, where did that fluorine go ? I think it will 
be brought out by witnesses here that some of that .fluorine probably 
is stored up in the pipes somewhere along the line; certainly if water 
goes into the pipe at the plant with certain concentration, it ought 
to come out a few blocks or a few miles away from where it went 
in ; should it not ? 

It comes out sometimes with a higher content and sometimes with 
a lower content. 

That is one of the mysteries that makes people frightened and 
skeptical about the assurances they are constantly receiving that this 
thing cannot hurt anybody. 

Now as to the corrosive action of fluorine on water-plant eq^uipment. 
I read you briefly from what the International Nickel Co. said. I am 
going to give you a little of the experience of Madison, Wis. Madison, 
Wis., is proud to say, for about 5 years, it was ahead of the rest of the 
country in fluoridating its water. Madison is so confident that, 
instead of using one of the fluorides, or the sodium fluorides or the 


sodium silicate fluorides, it used hydrochloric acid. That is the stuff 
that burns up glass and burns up iron and wood, and a drop of it on 
your hand would probably cause an incurable sore. It is used because 
it is cheaper as it mixes with water. But I am going to quote briefly 
from a statement by Mr. H. E. Worth, assistant sanitary engineer of 
the State board of health of Wisconsin, who, by the way, is strongly 
in favor of fluoridation. His statement was made, at a conference on 
fluoridation at the University of Washington in Seattle, and I believe 
we may have witnesses here who were present at the time that state- 
ment was made. If you will bear with me, I would just like to give you 
some of Mr. Worth's statement. Incidentally, after receiving a copy 
of Mr. Worth's statement, I wrote him and asked him if it were 
correct, if he had been properly quoted, and he sent me a copy which 
agreed with the copy that I had, and he had some other information 
added to it. I picked out some of the more salient points, and I quote : 

Some operating difficulties have been noted, sucli as the clogging of solution 
piping by disposition of inert materials, the presence of foreign material consist- 
ing of pieces of heavy paper, slivers of wood, nails, and staples, found in com- 
pound described as 98 percent pure white sodium fluoride. There is also the more 
difficult problem of incrustation. 

This problem, common in hard waters, has been experienced in soft waters 
as well. When mixed with the water supply, sodium fluoride forms a precipitate 
with the calcium in the water which plugs in the injection lines, incrusts tanks 
and solution chambers. 

Even in soft-water makeup, precipitates form in the tank which, if not periodi- 
cally removed, plugs the feeder. Control of this condition is secured by periodic 
backwashing of the tanks which brings the sludge to the top where it can be 
removed. Madison uses cast iron for both tanks. Originally, attempt was made 
to feed into the well discharge lines. Severe erosion at the point of installation 
was ever present, however, requiring weekly replacement of the fittings. 

Gentlemen, may I repeat those last few words : 

Erosion of the metal-mixing machinery requires weekly replacement of the 

We cannot replace our internal fittings very well. Sometimes they 
do, but once our liver and kidneys and intestines are gone, we prob- 
ably will not get any more. 

That seems to me, Mr. Worth's statement seems to me, to answer 
in part the question of why in the city of Charlotte, X. C, they found 
higher and lower concentration when the city plant was trying to keep 
a level of 1 part per million. 

We have talked here of two instances where we have expert tech- 
nicians handling the equipment, both of them sanitary engineers 
who have been schooled in the work and know their stuff. And now 
the next question is, then, what would be the result if the village 
barber or the tinsmith were to be the man handling the fluoridation 
equi[)ment t And you may think that is pretty far fetched, to refer 
to the village barber or the tinsmith. But let me go back to Dr. Bull — 
at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Officers. Dr. Bull 
was describing this question of the safety of mixing and metering 
equipment. Apparently a number of delegates, of engineers and 
citizens from other States, had come to Madison, Wis., which had 
pioneered in fluoridation, and were asking for enlightenment and 
this is what Dr. Bull says, and I quote : 

So we took them to several little installations where the village barber is the 
waterworks man, or the hardware man is the w^aterworks man. And we turned 
them over to him, and let the engineers question him and find out what he is 




doing and how he is doing it. Now, in large cities, we do not concern ourselves 
because they know how to handle the equipment and have trained help. But 
in a small community, where the barber is going to operate the feeder, if 
anything goes wrong, he throws up his hands. 

Gentlemen, is there any wonder that citizens throw up their hands 
when there are such releases as that in published statements? 

Now, in the city of Washington, as I told you, the District officials 
refused to hold hearings, refused to hear those who wanted both 
sides of the facts brought out. They have made up their minds and 
they went ahead and put fluoridation in without public consent. 
They probably have expert people working in the city water plant. 
But those emploj^ees — they are not pharmacists, they are dealing with 
a highly toxic element. They are putting into the city water of the 
District of Columbia and its environs which draw from the same 
District, 2,800 pounds of sodium silicate fluorides each day. That 
amounts to more than 1 million pounds, 500 tons, and the quantity 
has increased as the population in the area increases. 

The yearly cost to the District taxpayer for the fluorine alone, not 
counting the cost of the superintendent, labor, and propaganda, is 
$71,500. That seems small. But it is large. When the District's 
estimates made by waterworks officials shows that for every pound of 
fluoride put into the public water, 99.6 percent is wasted, used for 
laundering, washing cars, and it goes to people who cannot be bene- 
fited by fluoridation, as it is used in industrial plants and what not. 
So out of our $71,214 invested in the chemical alone, in the District 
of Columbia, only $286 worth of this treatment can reach children 
who might be benefited and benefited only partially. 

We have heard of one town, and I think it is Grafton, Mass., where 
a 17-year-old patient in a school for the feeble minded is the one 
who handles the fluoridation plant. 

I want to get to the very much publicized question of the endorse- 
ment of fluoridation by the American Medical Association. If one 
reads the statement issued by the secretary of the American Medical 
Association during the Delaney hearings, you will find that the AMA 
council endorsed fluoridation in principle only; the council said it 
does not know of any harmful effects; they did not say that it was 
not harmful ; they did not say it was ; they said, "We do not know 
of any harmful effect." It is a good deal like the man who said he 
did not know the gun was loaded. And they did not recommend 
that any community adopt fluoridation but they did recommend 
further research and study on the question of toxicity. 

Gentlemen, I do not think that is a very strong endorsement of 
fluoridation by the American Medical Association. It smacks more 
of professional courtesy toward the American Dental Association 
so that the doctors don't want to encroach upon the dentists and the 
doctors of the American Medical Association do not want to have 
the responsibility — of assuming responsibility of any later harm that 
may come along. 

Now, those who are for fluoridation say there are very strong prece- 
dents for universal fluoridation, compulsory fluoridation ; that it does 
not require public approval. They cite among other things the prece- 
dent of chlorine in public drinking water, the use of fluorine is not 
analogous to the use of chlorine, because the function of chlorine is 


simply to remove the harmful bacteria or organisms and the chlorine 
can be removed from the water by boiling ; fluorine cannot ; chlorine 
can. By boiling the water, fluorine becomes more concentrated. 

They also use compulsory vaccination against smallpox and per- 
haps some other diseases or the compulsory isolation of typhoid vic- 
tims in some communities, although those practices are not universal. 

Again, they are not analogous to the addition of fluorine to water 
because they are definite measures against contagious and infectious 

According to the authorities, the cause of dental caries is still an 
unknown question. No one has ever found an organism in a tooth, 
either adult or child, which could be identified as the cause of dental 
decay. And tooth decay is neither contagious nor epidemic nor a 
menace to public health. 

Now, another precedent for universal fluoridation, but one which 
the proponents of fluoridation carefully refrain from mentioning, 
I believe was mentioned here this morning, and that was an attempt, 
a generation ago, to introduce iodine by law into the public drinking 
water of all communities in the United States as a preventive or 
goiter. That was done in some communities. I believe Rochester, 
N. Y., which has since turned thumbs down hard on fluoridation, was 
the first one. Hardly had that campaign started, however, than the 
medical profession discovered that the addition of iodine, instead of 
preventing goiter or curing goiter, encouraged the development of 
goiter and the process was stopped and those who had proposed it 
were discrediled. 

Now, I want to touch a little bit upon the question of Government 
responsibility in this question of fluoridation. 

You gentlemen have probably covered it better than I have, but it 
has been suggested that H. R. 2341 might invade State police power by 
prohibiting a State or a community from doing, as a health measure, 
what it sees fit. We submit that the Federal Government is already 
doing that by appropriating large sums of money to the United States 
Public Health Service, part of which money is used directly in the 
propagandization of fluoridation and parts of which must bear some 
reasonable relationship to fluoridation because it is used as grants-in- 
aid to various institutions, where some people, once opposed to fluori- 
dation, have now slightly changed their tune, or quit talking about 
it entirely. We believe that the measure before this committee, which 
is probably imperfect, as it was probably written so, contains no 
penalties ; we believe that part of it, however, if the whole of the bill 
is unacceptable to this committee, and to the Congress, we believe the 
part of it which would prohibit the fluoridation of water in any such 
area as the District of Columbia, which is under direct Federal control, 
the Territory of Hawaii and the Territory of Alaska and in veterans' 
hospitals and military installations and other communities would be 
proper and legal. 

We would like to see it banned or abandoned throughout the United 
States. That may be impossible by Federal law, but what is suggested 
in that part of H. R. 2341 would be a long step toward bringing to 
public attention the fact that the Congress does not look with favor 
upon the propagandizing methods of one of the Government agencies. 

Thank you. 


The Chairman. Thank you very much. Are there any questions, 
gentlemen ? 

Mr. Dolliver? 

Mr. DoLLi\^R. I notice that you represent the National Committee 
Against Fluoridation. 

Mr. Palmer. Yes, 

Mr. Dolliver. And were formerly head of the committee on 

Mr. Palmer. That is right. 

Mr. Dolliver. Will you give us an idea who composes that 
organization ? 

Mr. Palmer. I am glad you asked that question. Mostly women. 

Mr. Dolliver. Mostly women? 

Mr. Palmer. I would say that the membership is over 65 percent 
women, most of them housewives. 

Mr. Dolliver. Are there any scientists among them ? 

Mr. Palmer. Yes, we have some doctors and we have some dentists 
and some chemists. The membership has the nucleus here in Washing- 
ton ; it is not great. I believe it is something like 375 members who 
have gathered. 

Mr. Dolliver. How many? 

Mr. Palmer. Something like 375, but we are the nucleus now of 
various groups in various parts of the country. There are a good 
many of them from Florida to Massachusetts and as far as Anchorage, 
Alaska, where a group has been formed. 

We do not ask their individual members to become members of our 
group, but we have changed to a National Committee Against Fluori- 
dation because most of these people in outlying districts wanted an 
organization with a national status in the Nation's Capital. 

Mr. Dolliver. How many scientists are connected with the 

Mr. Palmer. You mean physicists and people like that? 

Mr. Dolliver. I mean in the medical or dental term. 

Mr. Palmer. I do not know. We have dentists, and we will have 
some in here as witnesses at these hearings who are graduates and 
practicing dentists and physicians. 

Mr, DoLLi\^R. How do you finance the organization ? 

Mr. Palmer. As best we can, Mr. Dolliver. 

Mr. Dolliver. Do you have membership dues ? 

Mr. Palmer. We have annual dues of $1 at the present time and 
frankly some of them are reluctant about giving up the buck. The 
public'apathy and inertia to this thing is astounding. People cannot 
see, they cannot taste, they cannot taste flour ine in their water and 
they say, I feel all right, so what? But there are people who are 
going a little bit beyond that. Some are saying that is unethical and 
moral invasion of their rights to control their own bodies. Other 
people are rather vocal; they do care. Some of them are at times 
emotional. Maybe some of our witnesses here will appeal to you as 
a bit emotional. Forgive them if you can because it is an emotional 
subject to them ; it is something new and dangerous. 

Excuse me for wandering away from answering your question, 
directly. Congressman. Have I cleared up the point ? 

Mr. Dolliver. You mean to say that your only financial support 
is from the $1? 


Mr. Palmer. No. 

Mr. DoLLivER. From the 375 people ? 

Mr. Palmer. No. 

Mr. DoLLivER. There must be somebody paying some of the ex- 

Deiises . 

Mr. Palmer. As far as I know, the biggest single contribution, and 
it is from a member, has been $50. There have probably been a few 
$50 contributions; there have been some $25, and more $10's and moi-e 
$5's. We do not spend much money. 

Mr. DoLLiVER. Wlio is your treasurer? 

Mv. Palmer. The treasurer— I will have to ask Mrs. Adams. 

Mrs. Adams. Mrs. Bertha B. Forney. 

Mr. Palmer. If the Congressman is looking for information as to 
whether we have an "angel," whether we have any financial backing, 
whether any organization is back of us, there is none. 

The assertion has been made here that— and it has been made else- 
where, of coui-se, that this is a bunch of Christian Scientists. I think 
we do have some Christian Scientists among us. I personally am a 
Presbyterian. I do not think we have ever inquired as to the religious 
beliefs of our members or whether they had any or not, or much as to 
their occupation. We are not backed by anybody who is digging up 
a lot of money, because we do not spend a lot of money. 

The cost of preparing my statement and the statement of another 
witness was borne out of my pocket. I happen to have a fair salary 
myself, and I am willing to spend some of it in this direction. 

Mr. Dolliver. When did you first become interested in the subject ? 

Mr. Palmer. When two ladies I mentioned came to me separately 
and said this question of fluoridation was bothering them. I knew^ 
them both. They did not know each other. "Can you suggest some- 
body who would be the nucleus of an organization," and I said to Mrs. 
Adams, "I wish you would get in touch with Mrs. Philadelphius," 
and to Mrs. Philadelphius, 'T wish you Avould get in touch with Mrs. 
Adams." and they did. 

Then they came to me and they said, "We feel that we should incor- 
porate. Can you recommend a lawyer." 

Well, I know of a young lawyer who is public spirited, and I said, 
"AMiy don't you go 'to Bob Wrighter, or I will phone him if you 
want me to." 

As a result, there was a little gathering of 5 or 6 people; I was 
invited to attend, and I had nothing ofiicially to do with it. The 
organization was formed, incorporated, and the first thing I knew, I 
landed on the board of directors. I do not know why but I am 

Mr. Dolliver. Is fluoride an element? 

Mr. Pal:mer. Yes, it is one of the helogen gases, along with fluorine 
and several others. It is one that is extremely deadly, along with 
liydrocyanic gas. 

]\Ir. Dolliver. Is it related to the chlorine family ? 

Mr. Palmer. It is related to the chlorine family, yes, of the helogen 
group; there are about seven of the helogens. I am not a chemist, 
but they are all of that family; they are all rather fatal in their 
reactions upon animal and vegetable life, and u])on metal. 

Mr. Dolliver. Well, chlorine is quite extensively used to purify 


Mr. Palmer. Yes. 

Mr. DoLLivER. There are a great many cities use it including Wash- 
ington ? 

Mr. Palmer. Surely; chlorine is very valuable for that purpose. 
Chlorine does not have corrosive properties. 

Mr. DoLLivER. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Palmer. Chlorine does not have corrosive properties, the cor- 
rosive properties that fluorine does. I have talked with doctors about 
this, about the constant ingestion of small amounts of fluorine, whether 
it might produce chronic conditions. The reason why fluorine is not 
suspected is the fact that in the settling process of city-purified water, 
most of the fluorine is evaporated — I mean, chlorine. Fluorine will 
not evaporate. Chlorine will evaporate, but fluorine will not evaporate. 

When you cook your vegetables at home in water in which the 
fluorine may be so strong that you can smell it, or taste it, and when 
you come to cooking it, the process will drive off the chlorine — and I 
am getting the two terms confused. Fluorine will concentrate. I am 
going to get these w^ords mixed up here if I am not careful. 

Mr. DoLLivER. Of course, there are many compounds of both of 
tiiese elements, chlorine and fluorine; are there not? 

Mr. Palmer. Yes ; the principal compound of fluorine or the fluo- 
rides which are sold, in which the acid has mixed with metal. Fluo- 
rine has the property of uniting directly with most metals. It has a 
very, very strong affinity for calcium, according to the chemical ex- 
perts. For that reason, the excess of fluorine that we may get from our 
food, or our drinking water may be stored up in the bones, causing 
arthritic conditions — but I would rather not try to discuss that, be- 
cause I am not an expert. 

Mr. DoLLivER. We will have some other witnesses who are to cover 

Mr. Palmer. The other witnesses will testify on that. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Are there any further 

Mr. Derounian. Mr. Palmer, I was interested in that part of your 
statement, "Wlien metal bursts into flame." Do you think that is a 
fair representation of the effect of fluorine on water ? 

Mr. Palmer. Not fluorine and water ; no ; one part to a million. I 
was giving there only the nature of the element itself ; not the effect 
of long ingestion of one part per million. 

Mr. Derounian. Is fluorine explosive? 

Mr. Palmer. Fluorine is said to be the bad boy in the chemical 
world. It is the most unpredictable and difficult to handle of all of 
the elements known to science. 

Mr. Derounian. Would you say that hydrogen is explosive ? 

Mr. Palmer. Well, hydrogen burns. It is explosive ; it is explosive 
when it is in a container, when it is burnt in a restricted area. 

Mr. Derounian. It is potentially a dangerous element; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Palmer. Yes. 

Mr. Derounian. Do you think we ought to stop drinking water ? 

Mr. Palmer. No; because we need hydrogen in our economy just 
as we need chlorine. We need chlorine, a certain quantity of it, to 
form hydrochloric acid ; that is a part of the digestive juices of the 


system. According to some scientists, one scientist wliom we expect 
to be here — expected to be here — fluorine phiys no part in the body 
metabolism, and it is not an element that is necessary in the develop- 
ment of the human organism, and it is there as an invader. We could 
not live very long without hydrogen ; we can live without fluorine. 

Mr. Derounian. Have you made any surveys of the efi'ect of fluo- 
rine in the water in the District of Columbia on the health of the 
imbibers ? 

JMr. Palmer. No ; it has not been established long enough. 

Mr. Derouxiax. It has not been ? 

Mr. Palmer. No ; it has only been in use about 2 years. 

j\Ir. Dergunian. And yet you think you can make a statement that 
it is harmful to the user? 

Mr. Palmer. I say that scientists, certain scientists, have developed 
the fact that its long ingestion, its use with the experiments on animals, 
have created conditions, and tliey have cured .them by taking the fluo- 
rine away and have reinstituted the condition by returning the animal 
to the fluorine diet. Those are questions, sir, that the scientists should 
answer, not a layman. 

Mr. Derouxiax. Why do you think the Public Health Service of the 
United States is for fluorine ? 

Mr. Palmer. I do not think there is any question about that ; we have 
seen their printed literature, their manual went out to promote fluori- 
dation — and I was going to say how to put fluoridation over — their 
little booklet that answers, supposed-to-be answers, to the questions 
raised by the opponents. A pamphlet which was received in my office 
recently from the Public Dental Officers of the State of Pennsylvania, 
from Harrisburg, which had been at the instance of the United States 
Public Health Service and was distributed throughout the country. 
The fact that United States Public Health Service has caused these 
conferences of State dental officers, called them to Washington and, I 
believe, in some instances, have paid their expenses to indoctrinate 
them on the question of fluoridation and tell them how to promote 
it — and that is not a secret. 

Mr. Derouxiax. Do you think that they would openly advocate any- 
thing that was detrimental to the health of the people of the United 

Mr. Palmer. They might, sir. They advocated iodine at one time. 

Mr. Derouxiax. Well, do you think it is a Communist plot ? 

Mr. Palmer. No, no, no ; certainly not, 

Mr. Derounl\n. Some people claim that ? 

Mr. Palmer. Some people would say that about anybody. No, I do 
not think there is any such Communist plot. 

Mr. Derounl4X. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hale. 

Mr. Hale. Mr. Palmer, is this national committee a local group or 
is it spread over the country ? 

Mr. Palmer. We have — most of our members are near Washing- 
ton, but we have members as far away as California, Florida, and 
Alaska, and Maine and Massachusetts. Not many. We have not the 
facilties or the funds to go out and make a drive to get a lot of 
members. We should have 10,000 instead of 375, because I beli^vf^ 
there are 10,000 people. It is just a little group, just as we are, with 

48391—54 3 


a small amount of money, and we cannot go out and do the kind of 
work that a big Government agency can. 

The Chaikman. We thank you, Mr. Palmer, for your statement. 

Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. 

I understand that my full statement will appear in the record ? 

The Chairman. Yes. Without objection, the statement of Mr. 
Palmer will be inserted in the record. 

(The statement referred to follows : ) 

The Miscalculated Risk of Mass Fluoridation — A Statement by Claude N. 
Palmer, Member of the Board of Directors, in Support of H. R. 2341, Pre- 
sented ON Behalf of the National Committee Against Fluoridation (For- 
merly Citizens Committee on Flltoridation ) 

Part I 

"May God grant me the wisdom to discover my own mistalies." With this 
prayer, the young scientist, Arrowsiuith, began his career as a researcher into- 
the causes and prevention of contagious disease. The National Committee 
Against Fluoridation, a nonprofit, nonsectarian group of American citizens, 
chartered under the laws of the District of Columbia, will endeavor to show 
by their own words how this creed of medical and research ethics is ignored by 
those who advocate most vociferously a regimen of mass medication by adding 
fluorine to community water supplies. 

We lay no claim to being a group of scientists, though our membership, which 
extends from Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska, includes physi- 
cians, dentists, chemists, educators, and other professional men, as well as lay 
citizens from all levels of society. Since other witnesses will discuss fluorida- 
tion from a purely scientific viewpoint, in which some differing opinions may 
be expressed, this statement will deal mainly with certain contradictory asser- 
tions made by the proponents of fluoridation as to its possible benefits and 
potential dangers. 

the chemical properties of fluorine 

On one subject, however, no disagreement will be expressed on either side 
of this issue. As every standard work on chemistry shows, no doubt exists 
as to the violent reaction of fluorine and its compounds on both animal and 
vegetable life. In support of this fact, we quote in part a statement of the 
International Nickel Co., published under the caption, "When Metal Bursts 
Into Flame." 

"Imagine, if you can, an element so flerce it burns up steel. One that claws 
its way through flrebrick * * * makes water burn like alcohol * * * destroys 
almost everything it touches. That's fluorine for you. And for over 200 years 
chemists racked their brains to find some material that would hold fluorine * * * 
for even a few minutes' study. Numerous materials * * * were tried. Most 
went up in a flash." 

With these and other facts about the violent nature of fluorine and its com- 
pounds readily available, many people have become alarmed at the addition 
of this chemical to their drinking and cooking water, and are not convinced 
by statements from unknown sources, no matter how official, that taking this 
element into their systems for the rest of their lives, even though in minute 
doses, cannot possibly have a toxic effect upon their own and their children's 
future health. 

These doubts and anxieties would not have been so widespread, nor would 
public resistance to and defeat of fluoridation have occurred in so many locali- 
ties, both before and after its inception, were it not for the fact that this system 
of compulsory mass medication was in many instances introduced without the 
knowledge and consent of those who might be injured by it and often despite 
the protests of people who considered it an invasion of their personal rights 
and liberties. 

the policy of fluoridation by stealth 

That the advocates of fluoridation have adopted a deliberate policy of keeping 
the general public in ignorance on the subject — at least preventing a referendum 
vote in the community if possible— is shown by the record of proceedings at; 


the fom-tli annn.Ml confereiioe of State dental directors and tlie Public Health 
Service in Washington, D. C., in June 1951. At this meeting Dr. F. A. Bull, 
director of dental education, Wisconsin State Board of Health, and evidently 
keynoter for the advocates of lluoridation, said in part as follows : 

"If you can — I say if you can. because live times we have not been able to 
do it — keep fluoridation from going to a refei-endum. After you have just a 
little experience, you will find you can wallv into a mayor's office and after 
about three sentences you will know whether he is for fluoridation or against it." 

At another point in his address, referring to the toxicity of drinking water 
with a concentration of 1 part fluoride to 1 million parts of water. Dr. Bull 
is quoted in the official conference proceedings as saying : 

"Now, in regard to toxicity, I note that Dr. Bain u.sed the term 'adding sodium 
fluoride.' We never do that. That's rat poison. You add fluorides. Never 
mind that sodium fluoride business, because in most instances we are not a<ld- 
ing sodium fluoride anyhow. All of those things give the opposition something 
to pick at, and they have enough to pick at without our giving them any more. 
But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't give you the answer on it. 
After all, you know fluoridated water isn't toxic. But when the other fellow 
says it is, it's difficult to answer him. I can prove that we don't know the 
answer to that one, because we had a city of 18,000 that was fluoridating the 
water for 6 or S months. A campaign was started by organized opposition on 
the ground of toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out fluori- 

With such mixtures of professional candor and confusion reaching the ears of 
intelligent people, it is easy to understand Avhy such communities as Los Angeles, 
Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Reading, 
New York, Rochester, Boston, Cambridge, Worcester, Cincinnati, Tampa, Lan- 
sing, Tallahassee, and some 300 other places rejected fluoridation either before it 
began or after it had been in operation, sometimes for a year or more. 


Besides telling only what it wants the public to believe, carefully omitting any 
reference to the possibility of chronic fluorine poisoning, the proponents of 
fluoridation adroitly sidestep all mention of the rising flood of opposition that 
faces them in well-informed communities. The public hears only about new 
installations ; never of rejections. We are asked to believe that many cities 
and towns eagerly await fluoridation ; never that hundreds of communities have 
rejected it. 

It is not strange that authentic data on the number of fluoridated areas are 
difficult to obtain, since profluoridatiou propaganda has used approximately the 
same figures — 600 to 700 — during the past several years. Fluoridation pro- 
ponents have, however, recently made the satement that some 17 million 
American citizens are now drinking artificially fluoridated water. As the lluori- 
dation program has been running in high gear for more than 10 years, this figure 
is not impressive, since it represents only about 10 percent of today's national 

Compared with the rather poor showing on a nationwide basis, after nearly a 
decade of ceaseless propaganda and enthusiastic endorsement by medical and 
dental societies, public officials, chambers of commerce, and welfare groups, it 
is significent that the 17 cities previously noted, all of which liave rejected out- 
right or postponed fluoridation of their water supplies, represent a population 
of more than 20 million. It is thus apparent that few cities in whicli 
fluoridation has been turned down outnumber by upward of 3 million persons the 
most optimistic claims of profltioridation enthusiasts. 

We believe it safe to say that more resistance would have developed and more 
communities would have abandoned the idea of fluoridating their water sys- 
tems if the public had been informed of what was going on, and if both sides 
of the issue had been discussed openly. That this was not the policy of thosfc, 
most interested in fluoridation is shown by the fact that many people are un- 
aware that fluorides are being added to their drinking water, and do not know 
about the difference between fluorine and chlorine in their action upon animal 
organs and tissues. 

In this connection, it is doubtful that all Members of Congress know whether 
or not the public water supplies in their own districts contain fluorine. A sur- 
vey among adult citizens of Newburgh, N. Y., a community that has received more 


profluoridation publicity perhaps than any other town, revealed that only 8 
percent had any idea as to what "fluoridation" means, 72 percent said they did 
not know, the remaining 20 percent were undecided. Of the Newburgh group, 
only 22 percent were aware that fluorides were added to their drinking water, 
while 61 percent did not, but 83 percent said they believed they should have 
been consulted, and only 2 percent raised no objection, 


Other witnesses will discuss the therapeutic and physiological sides of this 
issue. It is my intention to point out the difliculty of obtaining authentic and 
imbiased data regarding the results of fluoridation in its job of reducing dental 
caries among children up to 8 years of age. While there is little doul)t that 
fluoridated drinking water makes the teeth of young children somewhat more 
resistant to decay, there is much difference of opinion among dental authorities 
as to whether fluorine alone can be credited with producing the result. Some 
observers report that when fluoridation appears on the scene, certain other 
influences take a hand in the work, contributing a considerable share to its 

Since data on all pilot experiments in this country are apt to be influenced 
by the experimenter's personal predilections, no matter how conscientious 
lie happens to be, we take the experience of Canadian cities to show the error 
of giving full credit to fluoridation for reducing tooth decay among school chil- 
dren in one place, while equally good results were obtained in another without 

Brantford, Ontario, adopted fluoridation in 1944. After 6 years its public 
health officer reported (February 1950) a reduction of 3l percent among chil- 
dren of school age requiring dental repairs. This report gave a sudden spurt 
to the campaign for public water fluoridation in Toronto. But health oflicials 
in Toronto had meanwhile been watching the condition of their school children's 
teeth. When the cry for fluoridation became insistent, they announced that 
dental decay among Toronto's children declined 45.3 percent during the same 
period of years. 

The reason for Toronto's experience is simple. While Brantford was treat- 
ing its children's teeth with fluorine, Toronto was plying its children with in- 
formation on proper diet, exercise, and other aids to good health and teeth. 
This is an essential to every health program among school children, whether 
the community water supply is fluoridated, or whether it remains free of 
artificial medication. The Brantford-Toronto picture could be repeated many 
times over in this country. 


A favorite assertion of the professional and amateur fluoridators is that no 
harmful effect is possible from water containing "the prescribed concentration" — 
one part of fluorine to a million parts of water — other than a slight mottling 
or discoloration of the teeth. This formula completely overlooks the fact that 
some persons consume in the course of a day many times the amount of water 
consumed by others, that in summer most people drink much more than during 
cold weather, that persons afflicted with certain diseases need much more than 
the average needed by well persons, and that the susceptibility of one person 
to a given treatment differs widely from all others. 

Prescribing the same pill to everyone, regardless of age, health, or ability 
to withstand its cumulative effect, and telling the patient to take as much or as 
little of tlie drug as he pleases, would hardly be considered acceptable procedure 
on the part of a practicing physician. Yet men who are not practicing physicians 
assume the prerogative of prescribing the same amount of fluorine to every 
person in every community on a lifelong basis, despite individual tolerance or 

The "safe" dosage of fluorine is presumed to be one part per million. That is 
the amount appearing most frequently in published literature on the subject. 
Yet we find an admitted authority on fluoridation, the same Dr. Bull previously 
mentioned herein as the official spokesman for the form of universal medica- 
tion, telling his fellow dental directors — behind closed doors, of course — that 
not 1 part per milion, but 1.2 parts per million is the fluoride concentrate "we 
are recommending." 


Granting that this prescription is the last word in fluorine therapy, can we 
be sure it is compounded accurately in every case and all circumstances? We 
have sound evidence that it is not. In Charlotte, N. C, for example, one of our 
larger fluoridated communities, monthly analyses of fluorine concentration at 
the city water plant between September 1949 and August 1950 showed variations 
from 14 percent above to 35 percent below the prescribed amount, an overall 
spread of 48 percent. 

This 48 percent variation at the water plant might not be highly significant, if 
it were not for the fact that three other monthly tests of the same water drawn 
from the same source showed as great or greater variations in fluorine content, 
seldom agreeing with each other or with the water plant's analyses. Samples 
analyzed by the city health department showed a difference of 51 percent between 
maximum and minimum concentrations. The Charlotte water district tests 
showed variations of 53 percent during the 12-month period. Tests at a military 
post which draws its water from the Charlotte system showed a difference of 51 
percent between maximum and minimum fluorine concentrations. While the 
latter percentage coincides with that of the city waterworks, it is significant that 
in no montli of the 12 were all 4 tests in complete agreement as to the fluorine 
content of their individual samples. 

If it were true, as promoters of fluoridation assert, that mixing and metering 
equipment used to combine fluorides with water are infallible, there would be 
only one reason why water enters the city mains with one concentration and 
leaves them a few miles away with a higher or lower concentration. This reason 
would be that part of the fluoride is deposited somewhere along the line. While 
there are indications that this is true to some extent, there is good evidence that 
certain amounts of fluoride remain in the mixing device, temporarily at least. 


Evidence that even the most modern fluoride-mixing equipment in the hands 
of expert operators does not always compound the prescription accurately is given 
in a public statement by H. E. Wirth, assistant sanitary engineer of the State 
board of health, Madison, Wis. Mr. Wirth was quoted as follows in the tran- 
script of a discussion on fluoridation at the University of Washington : 

"Some operating difficulties have been noted, such as the clogging of solution 
piping by deposition of inert materials, the presence of foreign material consisting 
of pieces of heavy paper, slivers of wood, nails and staples, found in compounds 
described as 98 percent pure white sodium fluoride. There is (also) the more 
difficult problem of incrustation. 

'"This problem, common in hard waters, has been experienced in soft waters as 
well. When mixed with the water supply, sodium fluoride forms a precipitate 
with the calcuim in the water, which plugs the injection lines, incrusts tanks 
and solution chambers. 

"Even in soft-water makeup, precipitates form in the tanks, which, if not 
periodically removed, plugs the feeder. Control of this condition is secured by 
periodic back-washing of the tanks, which brings the sludge to the toi), where it 
can be removed. INIadison used cast iron for both tanks. Originally, attempt was 
made to feed into the well discharge lines. Severe erosion at the point of instal- 
lations was everpresent, however, requiring iveekly replacement of the fittings'^ 
[Italic added.] 

If sodium fluoride added to public drinking water by the most modern device, 
and superintiieded by a professional sanitary engineer, is as difficult to control as 
Mr. Wirth's statement admits, we submit that this procedure presents a serious 
health prolilem. especially when handled by unskilled persons, such as the village 
barber or hardware man. To show that this responsibility is sometimes given 
to untrained persons, we again quote from the remarks of Dr. Bull, previously 
referred to in this statement : 

"So we took them to several little installations, where the village barber is 
the waterworks man, or the hardware man is the waterworks man. And we 
turned them over to him, and let the engineers question him, and find out what 
he is doing and how he is doing it. Now, in large cities, we do not concern 
ourselves, because they know how to handle the equipment and have trained 
help. But, in a small community, where the barber is going to operate the 
feeder, if anything goes wrong, he throws up his hands." 

This revelation should make any reasonable person think twice before approv- 
ing, let alone promoting, fluoridation in his own or any other community. It has 


been shown that serious mechanical difficulties appear in large cities (Charlotte 
and Madison), and that the risk of more serious trouble can be expected in 
places where the responsibility is given to unskilled workers. Despite such 
hazards, it is understood that the Public Health Service has supplied fluorine- 
mixing devices to certain communities at the American taxpayer's expense. 

Granting that the formula is correct and safe under all circumstances, it is 
imthinkable that the prescription should be filled by the village barber or hard- 
ware merchant. Prudence demands that such work be performed by registered 
pharmacists, not by handymen with part-time jobs in the local waterworks. 
Because of its dangerous nature, one may not buy hydrofluoric acid or other 
fluorides from a druggist. Yet these chemicals are now being administered in 
wholesale quantities to large groups of people by employees of municipal pump- 
ing stations all over the country under the qualified endorsement of the Ameri- 
can Medical Association. 

Much has been made by fluoridation advocates of this AMA endorsement. In 
its statement of some years ago to another congressional committee, the organi- 
zation endorsed the program in principle only, said its covmcils "did not Icnow 
of any injury" from drinking water with the recommended flourine content, did 
not believe such water to be toxic, and "purposely refrained" from suggesting or 
urging that any community fluoridate its public water supplies. This statement 
does not impress us as an unqualified endorsement of mass fluorine therapy. 


Proponents of fluoridation cite the practice of adding chlorine to community 
water systems as a precedent for adding fluorides. They also cite compulsory im- 
munization against certain contagious diseases, now practiced in many localities, 
as analogous to fluoridation. These analogies are not sound, however, since 
dental caries is neither epidemic, contagious, infectious, nor fatal. At its 
worst, tooth decay is a minor health problem, the causes and prevention of 
which are not yet fully understood after many years experimentation and 

There is, however, a single precedent in this field of therapy, though it is never 
mentioned publicly by the sponsors of fluoridation. We refer to an attempt of 
the United States Public Health Service and others a generation or more ago to 
promote the universal addition of iodine to public water supplies as a preventive 
of goiter. This early attempt to use city water mains as an avenue to mass 
medication failed for the simple reason that its backers learned in time that, 
rather than preventing or curing goiter, iodized drinking water tended to in- 
crease it. 

When the facts become known about fluoridation, we believe this therapy will 
follow universal compulsory iodinization into the discard. Meanwhile, the 
public is being subjected to a regimen of treatment for a minor ailment affecting 
almost wholly a small part of the population, the long-range effects of which 
are as yet unknown. To determine whether any person will be injured by this 
treatment would require observation covering one or more generations. lu 
these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the program was launched 
throughout the Nation, after only 2 or 3 years of pilot tests among children under 
9 years of age. 


It has been intimated that Congress may be reluctant about enacting the Wier 
bill (H. R. 2341) on the groimd that it might infringe the police powers reserved 
to individual S'tate legislatures. This doctrine might be tenable, if the Federal 
Government were not already invading such police powers through its Public 
Health Service, which is one of the chief and most ardent promoters of mass 
fluoridation on a nationwide basis, supplying both fluoride-mixing equipment 
and printed publicity for which the Federal Treasury foots the bill- 
Thus, the Congress is already responsible for any invasion of State or local 
police powers that might be involved in the passage of this legislation, since it 
appropriates the funds by which the Public Health Service is able to spread a web 
of profluoridation propaganda throughout the United States and even into foreign 
countries. Therefore, if the AVier bill is not acceptable to Congi-ess, neither is 
the profluoridation program now in progress by another branch of Government — 
the United States Public Health Service. 


In conclusion, we submit that the only alternative to enactment of this bill 
would be the elimination from future appropriaticms for the Public Health Service 
any funds that might be used in futhering the cause of mass fluoridation. 

Addendum to a Statement by Claude N. PALJtER in Support of the Wier Bill 

(H. R. 2341) 

The data herein presented are submitted for inclusion in the record of these 
hearings because certain witnesses, who were expected to discuss them, are unable 
to be present. The foregoing statement refers briefly to a qualified endorsement 
of the American Medical Association regarding the use of fluorine salts in public 
water suiJplies as a therapy for reducing tooth decay in young children from birth 
to the age of 9 or until their permanent dentition has erupted. 

This endorsement, it should be noted, adds that "fluoridation is essentially a 
matter for decision by the dental profession." By this qualification, the medical 
profession avoids responsibility for any harm resulting from this experiment in 
mass therapy, leaving it to the dental profession. As fluoridation is no more nor 
less than preventive medicine, and as it affects organs other than the teeth, we 
submit that it is ethically improper for dental groups to assume the authority for 
insisting that every person in a community shall be compelled to take a toxic 
dieinical, which can beneflt only a few young patients and may harm older ones. 

We also submit that reports of marked reductions in tooth decay among school 
children in fluoridated cities are misleading, in that they rely upon a method of 
appraising dental conditions known as the DFM index. This index considers 
only the outward evidences of dental health, D for decayed teeth, F for teeth with 
fillings, and M for missing or extracted permanent teeth. Since this appraisal 
takes into account only surface indications, ignoring structural conditions within 
the tooth itself, and giving no thought to the child's internal organs, bones, 
endocrine glands, and nervous system, all of which are affected by fluorine, it is 
quite obvious that the DFM assay is both superficial and misleading. 


Imagine, if you can, an element so fierce it burns up steel. One that claws its 
way through firebrick, makes water burn like alcohol, destroys almost everything 
it touches. 

That's fluoi'ine for you. 

And for over 200 years chemists racked their brains to find some material that 
would hold fluorine. Hold it for even a few minutes' study. 

Numerous materials — all considered dependably resistant to corrosion — were 
tried. Most went up in a flash. 

Some few seemed to work, momentarily. But let temperature rise a trifle, or 
pressure build uii — or a trace of moisture seep in — then dig out the wreckage and 
start over. 

Finally nickel and its alloys were tried. They work. They last for months 
where other materials failed in days or weeks. Today, j^ou flnd nickel and 
Inco nickel alloys in equipment that produces fluorine, in pumps and piping and 
valves where fluorine is compressed, stored, and processed. Nickel and Inco 
nickel alloys hold fluorine, even under heat and pressure. By the way, if you 
would like to know more about fluorine, ask us for a copy of Fluorine Makes Its 

Wlien you hare a mcial proMem— 

If it's corrosion, it can't be any tougher than that caused by fluorine, and the 
solution may be found in Inco nickel or one of the Inco nickel alloys. Inco 
corrosion engineers are ready to help you. They've prepared a corrosion data 
work sheet to make it easy for you to outline your problem to them. Write for it, 
without obligation, of coui'se. 

Or perhaps your metal problem concerns temperatures — high or low — stresses 
or fatigue resistance. AVhatever it may be, Inco engineers will gladly help you 
find the answer. The International Nickel Co., Inc., 67 Wall Street, New 
York 5, N. Y. 


In contrast to the tendency to iodine deficiency, too much fluorine in the water 
supply is detrimental. Fluorine has been shown to be the cause of a disfigur- 
ing dental disease known as mottled enamel or fluorosis (1077). Fluorine inter- 
feres with the normal calcification of the teeth during the process of their 


formation, so that affected teeth, in addition to being usually discolored and 
ugly in appearance, are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life. For 
this reason, it is especially important that fluox'ine be avoided during the period 
of tooth formation, that is, from birth to the age of 12 years. 

Fortunately most of our large city water supplies do not contain toxic con- 
centrations of fluorine, but there are sections in Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, 
Wyoming, Africa, Canada, China, England, Italy, New Zealand, and South 
America in which all native-born inhabitants who have used the community 
water supply during the period of enamel formation have mottled teeth. 

Quantitative knowledge of the human requirement for iodine and the human 
tolerance for fluorine has been handicapped by the minuteness of the amount 
involved in each case, which causes difficulty in analysis and measurement. 

Correlation studies (1070) between the occurrence of mottled enamel and 
the fluorine concentration of the water consumed by afflicted persons show 
that this dental disease is always found when water containing even as little 
as 1 part per million of fluorine is used continuously during the period of 
formation of the permanent teeth. Severe mottling of the temporary teeth 
(1078) has been repeatedly observed when the fluorine concentration of the 
water is excessively high (6 to 16 parts per million). Water containing such 
high concentrations of fluorine cannot be safely used even for cooking. 

The fluorine content of foodstuffs has been found to vary widely, but no evi- 
dence has been advanced so far to show that fluorine as combined naturally 
in foods is toxic. The fluorine problem therefore is chiefly concerned with the 
need for avoiding water containing fluorine in order to prevent the occurrence 
of mottled enamel. In many communities this is difficult, for all available water 
is contaminated with fluorine. In the past few years several methods of treat- 
ment of water for the removal of fluorine have been investigated, most of them 
proving unsatisfactory. The Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station has 
recently developed a method (lOfiO) of fluorine removal by filtration, through 
the use of specially prepared ground bone, which has proved effective and prac- 
tical for reducing the concentration of fluorine below the level that causes the 
dental disease. The method is based upon the previously mentioned fact that 
fluorine has a chemical affinity for the calcium of bone. 

The use of fluorine compounds as spray insecticides (1079) for vegetables and 
fruits presents another problem. Tests on rats indicate tliat the compounds of 
fluorine studied were equal in toxicity and that cryolite, a fluorine compound 
commonly used as a spray insecticide, was just as effective as the more soluble 
fluorine compounds in producing mild mottled enamel. Government control of 
the use of these compounds is recommended as a means of prevention of fluorosis, 
although the question of exact tolerance level for fluorine spray residues on 
food materials merits further investigation. 

[United States Dispensatory, 24th edition, 1943, pp. 1456-1457] 

Absolute hydrogen fluoride is at temperatures below 19.4° a clear, volatile 
liquid, miscible with water. Commercial hydrofluoric acid usually contains about 
46 to 50 percent of HF. Because of its solvent properties on glass, hydrofluoric 
acid is stored in lead, paraffin, or bakelite containers. Its vapors are extremely 
irritant and on contact with the skin cause serious ulcerations. If inhaled, they 
may cause edema of the glottis and death. In dilute solution, hydrofluoric acid 
act's, like other acids, as a local irritant, but is much more destructive to 

Hydrofluoric acid is u.sed for cleaning metals but especially for etching 
glass. (Balance of paragraph describes this use.) 

Fluorides, especially sodium fluoride, have had some experimental use in 
medicine, Goldenburg" (Semana mediea, 1932, 39, 1639) recommended sodium 
fluoride in the treatment of exophthalmic goiter ; he used it either by mouth or 
intravenously. The salt has also been used in rheumatism and in epilepsy. The 
dose employed has been from 10 to 60 mg. (approximately one-sixth of 1 grain). 

Fluorides are violent poison to all living tissues because of their precipitation 
of calcium. When introduced into the mammalian circulation, they cause fall 
of blood pressure, respiratory failure, and general paralysis. Continuous in- 


gestion of nonfatal doses, according to Sollniann (J. Pharmacol, 1921, 17, 197), 
cause general cachexia and permanent inhihitioii of growth. It is well estab- 
lished that the condition characterized by mottled enamel of the teeth endemic 
in ceitain areas — notably the Mississippi Valley — is due to the presence of small 
auiDunts of tiuorides in tlie drinlving water. For methods of removing fluorides 
from drinking water, see Funk and Lindsay (Ind. Chem. Eng., 1936, 28, 
947), lOlvove (Pub H.'alth Report, 1937, 52, 1308), and Dean (Pub. Health Report, 
1939, r)4, 802). 

In lower animals, analogous changes occur in teeth and the bones become 
hard and fragile (Cristiana, compt. rend. soc. biol., 1927, 9(j, 843). On the other 
hand, it appears that cnmpiete absence of tiuorides in drinking water, particularly 
during the first 10 years of life, may cause dental caries. Carefully controlled 
exp'rinu-^nts in regiilating the lluoride content of driid^ing water of several com- 
munities will, in the next few years, estal)lish whether there is need for the 
element and, if so. the optimum concentration for it. 

Sodium fluoride solutions, in concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 2.0 percent, 
have been applied topically in the treatment of teeth with seemingly good re- 
sults. Fntil their value is established, however, the use of fluoride-containing 
dentifrices or interna! medicaments is not justified. For an excellent review on 
this subject, authorized by the Council on D^ital Therapeutics of the American 
Dental Association, see Jay (J. A. Ph. A., Prac. Ed., 1946, 7, 204). 


In human of aciite fluoride poisoning, the most common symptoms 
are epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea with frequent local paralysis 
either in the legs or face. Necropsy shows congested and edematoiis mucous 
membrane of the stomach and upiter bowel, often with scattered hemorrhages. 
As the chief cause of death is the inactivation of the bodily calcium, the most 
imiiortant factor in the treatment is the free administration of lime salts; lime- 
water by mouth will help by precipitating any fluoride which may be in the 
stomach and calcium chloride intravenously is useful to supply a systemic 

For records of human poisoning, see Sharkey and Simpson (J. A. M. A., 1933, 
100. 97). As little as 0.25 gm. of sodium fluoride has caused dangerous symp- 
toms. Many of the cases of human poisoning have occurred from ingestion 
of a fluoride roach poison in mist: ike for baking powder. 

Under the name of ammonium bifluoride, a solution containing 20 percent of 
ammoiiiam hydrogen fluoride and 10 percent of hydrofluoric acid has been used 
by Head (J. A. M. A., 1931, 61. 2233) in the treatment of pyorrhea alveolaris. 
This solution is actively germacidal, having a phenol coefficient of 5.82. Several 
fluorides — ammonium, potassium, and sodium — have found various nonmedical 
use as, for example, in insecticides, in cleaning compositions, as fluxes, and as 
mordants in dyeing. 

Sodium silicofluoride, also knov.n as sodium fluosilicate Na2SiF6, is a white 
granular powder soluble in 150 parts of water. Since the fluosilicates possess 
the toxic properties of the fluorides, this salt is largely used as an insect exter- 
minator and rat poison. 


F. (19.00). — Fluorine, the most active member of the group of halogen ele- 
ments, was discovered in 1771 by Scheele, who obtained it from fluorite. but it 
was not until 1886 that Moissan succeeded in separating it and studying its 
properties. It is a green gas with a specific gravity, compared with air, of 1.31. 
Fluorine can be liquefied lielow its critical temperature of -129° ; the liquid 
boils, under atmospheric pressure, at -187°. The density of the liquid is 1.14. 

It is the most strongly negative element known, and hence is highly reactive. 
An account of fluorine produced by electrolysis if a mixture of anhydrous hydro- 
fluoric acid and fused patassium bifluoride is presented by Porter (Chem. Met. 
Eng. 1946, July, 106). 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to call attention again to the 
fact that Ave have a large number of witnesses, and if the time taken 
by the others is as long as those who have testified, we will not have 
an opportunity to hear so many today. 


I would like to say tliat we have just so mucli time and to suggest 
that you might like to conserve the time so that as many as possible 
can testify. 

Our next witness is Mr. Vincent A. Kleinfeld, attorney, of Wash- 
ington, D. C. 


Mr. Kleinfeld. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my 
name is Vincent A. Kleinfeld. I live at G:>03 30th Street ^' W., Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank the 
committee for permitting me to testify in connection with H. R. 2341. 
I appear in behalf of the National Citizens Committee on Fluori- 
dation, Washington, D. C., and the Florida Statewide Committee 
Against Fluoridation, which is an affiliated member of the Pure Water 
Association of America. These organizations are opposed to the 
fluoridation of the public water supply of this Nation. 

First, I should like to set forth briefly my background. The only 
reason for doing this is that, unfortunately, in connection with this 
problem, as with respect to other problems, there is a growing tend- 
ency to call those who disagree with us by opprobious names, rather 
than to meet their arguments by better ones. In addition, there is 
no doubt that the fluoridation program does create sometimes hysteria 
on both sides of the fence. On one side you Avill find those opposing 
fluoridation talking about some fantastic Communist plot. Of course, 
that is nonsense. 

On the other side, you will find the proponents of the program say- 
ing that fluoridation will not only reduce the incidence of dental decay 
in children but actually will improve the appearance of their teeth. 
And these very people, a number of years ago, by the use of photo- 
graphs and statistics and figures, showed that in the cities where they 
had about 1 part of fluoride added to the drinking water, about 10 
percent of the children were having what they called a very mild 
mottled, or spots on their teeth. They were in the back and sometimes 
in the front. 

I am not saying that is very bad. I am saying that they claim that 
it was an improvement in the appearance of their teeth. So I will try 
here not to become hysterical about it. My main purpose in this tes- 
timony is to say that the advocates of fluoridation in the water supply 
of the entire Nation are proceeding in somewhat an unrealistic and 
certainly an indecent eflEort. 

My background generally is this : I am a private lawyer, practicing 
law in this city. For approximately 10 years, I was head of the unit 
of the Department of Justice which handled litigation under the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and similar regulatory 
statutes. I have written books in that field ; I teach in the field and 
I have written fairly substantially in the field. 

For approximately 3 years, I was chief counsel to the House of 
Representatives committee to investigate the use of chemicals in foods 
and cosmetics and it was that committee, 2 members of which were 
physicians, 1 of whom was a former State health officer, which held 
hearings on the fluoridation of j)nblic water and issued a report on the 


subject, House Report 2500, 82d Congress, 2cl session. This report 
concludes as follows, and I quote : 

The Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service testified be- 
fore the committee as. follows ou the problems created by the ever-increasing 
utilization of chemicals in our food supiily — 

and I quote his statement: 

"The contamination of air, water, food, and milk with chemicals and the 
resultant effect ou health is of concern to the Public Health Service. The rapid- 
ity with which new compounds are being introduced in the production, process- 
ing, storage, packaging, and distribution of foods is alarming, particularly in 
view of tiie fact that the toxic effects of so many of these chemicals and the 
compounds which they form when introduced into the food are unknown. Be- 
cause of the fact that many individuals in the United States are exposed each 
day to these potential hazards, the Public Health Service wholeheartedly en- 
dorses the study which the committee is undertaking." 

I continue now with the quotation from the report of the committee : 

In the opinion of your committee, the fluoridation of the public drinking water 
of a signiticant portion of the population of the Nation is an integral part of 
the problem adverted to by the Surgeon General. Water is consumed by every 
person in a community, regardless of his age, physical condition, or possible 
personal reactions. It is essential, therefore, that all the facts concerning 
fluoridation be disseminated, and an opportunity given to the people of each 
community to decide for themselves whether they desire to assume, at this time, 
the calculated risk inherent in the program. 

The committee is of the view that a sufficient number of unanswered 
questions concerning the safety of this program exists as to warrant a con- 
servative attitude. The committee believes that if communities are to make a 
mistake in reaching a decision on whether to fluoridate their public drinking 
water, it is preferable to err on the side of caution. This would seem to be 
particularly true since there are reasonable alternatives to fluoridating the 
public water supply, even if these alternatives are not quite as effective. The 
topical application of fluorides to the teeth of children may be more cumber- 
some, and perhaps more expensive than the simple addition of fluorine to 
drinking water. Nevertheless, it is a feasible program and one which will 
provide comparable protection for children's teeth for the period needed to 
acquire evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that no hazard exists to any 
portion of the population by reason of the addition of fluorides to drinking 

The advisability of fluoridating the public water supply of the Nation is 
essentially a local problem, to be determined for itself by each community. 
Your committee is not recommending that Federal legislation be enacted in 
this field. The committee strongly urges, however, that research now under 
way be continued and expanded and that further studies, not limited to an 
examination of the vital statistics, be conducted to determine the long-range 
effects upon the aged and chronically ill of the ingestion of water containing 
inorganic fluorides. 

The point may be raised at the outset as to the constitutional power of the 
Federal Government to prohibit agencies of the States and cities from fluori- 
dating their drinking water supply if they so desire. I believe, personally, that 
point is well taken. If the Congress deems it advisable, however, it can 
undoubtedly provide that no agencies of the Federal Government, including the 
governments of the Territories and possessions of the United States, and of 
the District of Columbia, shall treat their public water supply with fluorides. 
Certainly, what the Congress does and what this committee does will have a 
most persuasive effect upon the States. 

I believe also that the point may be well taken, that this committee cannot 
substitute its judgment on scientific questions for that held by medical and 
scientific authorities. I firmly believe, nevertheless, that this committee is well 
qualified to determine if there is a split of authority on whether the fluoridation 
program has been proven afiirmatively to be entirely safe to all segments of 
the population, and to act accordingly within the authority vested in the 
Federal Government. 

In this connection, it is highly significant that a substantial number of 
reputable scientists hold the view that not enough is yet known about the 


cumulative and variable systemic effects of fluorides to warrant introducinj,^ 
them into our drinking water, which every person must necessarily consume, 
including- the young and old, the sick and well, the undernourished or mal- 
nourished child, and those with allergies or idiosyncrasies. If this committee 
determines that a prima facie case is developed indicating that a problem may 
exist, the committee may wish to hold further and more extensive hearings — 
or may wish to say that, in its opinion, the Federal Government, in the District 
of rolumbia or the Territories, in its opinion, is going too far, and that we 
should wait. 

Certainly the problem is a most important one — no program of this 
magnitude has ever been instituted on a compulsory basis as far as I 
liave been able to determine. The closest analogy is the program 
sponsored by tlie Public Health Service about 20 years ago to add 
an iodide to public water supplies to prevent goiter. I do not know 
why that program was abandoned. As the situation stands now, 
however, those who wish to consume an iodide may do so by using salt 
to which an iodide has been added. Those who do not wish to con- 
sume an iodide may purchase salt which is free from iodine. I suggest 
most respectfully that the committee give consideration to the hear- 
ings of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to which 
I have adverted dealing with fluoridation, part 3, beginning on page 

Another indication of what is attempted to be done by legislation 
by way of compulsion is a bill frequently introduced in the Congress to 
require all salt to be iodized. That has been defeated. Those who 
wish to use salt that is iodized can purchase it. Those who do not 
want to use it do not have to. 

A little over 20 years ago it was discovered that in certain areas 
of the country the presence of natural fluorine in the drinking water 
caused a mottling of the teeth but reduced the incidence of dental 
decay in persons in these areas. The United States Public Health 
Service came to the conclusion that if limited amounts of a fluoride 
were added to the drinking water of communities wdiose water did not 
contain a natural fluoride, there would be little or no mottling and an 
approximate two-thirds decrease in the incidence of dental decay. 
The Public Health Service has issued an unqualified endorsement of 
the program and, in a booklet entitled "Better Health for 5 to 14 
Cents a Year Through Fluoridated Water," and otherwise, is en- 
couraging cities to adopt the program. There is no doubt that most 
of the major organizations of the country in the field of health and 
medicine are of the opinion that the addition to communal water sup- 
plies of fluorides, in the proportion of about one part per million, does 
not present a health hazard. It is also clear, however, that a minority 
view is held by a number of qualified scientists, who believe that the 
safety of this procedure has not been demonstrated beyond a reason- 
able doubt. It is their position that the proponents of fluoridation, 
most of whom have done no independent research, are proceeding far 
too rapidly in recommending that communities fluoridate their water 
supplies immediately. 

I have set forth a few of the divided scientific opinions. For exam- 
ple. Dr. F. J. McLure, biochemist at the National Institute of Dental 
Research, Bethesda, Md., has said this : 

In view of the evidence we have accumulated and in consideration of the exten- 
sive studies of other authorities in this field, we do not regard the fluoridation 
of drinking water as a public health hazard. 


On the other hand, Dr. V. O. Hnrme, D. D. S., director of clinical 
research, Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children, Boston, has said: 

As yet there is not enough scientific basis for reconimonding immediate accept- 
ance of proposals to treat entire populations with fluorides. 

Dr. R. S. Harris of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has 
said : 

* * * considerably more research on the toxicity of fluorine should be con- 
ducted before this' interesting means for reducing tooth decay in man is 

There seems to be little dispute that children ^Yho, from birth to t]ie 
age of 8, consume water containing approximately one part per million 
of a fluoride, will have fewer cavities than children drinking water 
containing no fluoride. The major problem vrhicli exists, however, is 
whether a suflicient amount of scientific investigation has been per- 
formed to warrant adding fluorides to the entire water supply of the 
Nation now. 

It is the natural tendency of most people, and that of many of our 
great newspapers, to advocate most earnestly the fluoridation (»f our 
drinking water. I certainly do not blame them for, as I have indi- 
cated, most of our associations devoted to health have endorsed i:hc 

It is most important, however, to determine which approach to the 
problem of adding a fluoride to drinking water, or adding any cJiem- 
ical to any food substance, is taken. Most of the advocates of the 
program say, and this may well be true, that it has not been estab- 
lished that the addition of a fluoride to water has killed or injured 
anyone. Therefore, they declare, the program should be adopted tince 
the incidence of dental decay in children will be reduced. A])parently 
that is the position held by the Public Health Service, based on that 
proposition and so-called epidemiological studies. 

The other approach is that taken by the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration, another Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, not to the fluoridation progi-am, but to the overall problem 
of the addition of chemicals to the food supply of the Nation. The 
firm view of the Food and Drug Administration in connection with the 
addition of any chemical to any food is that it is up to the proponent 
of the utilization of a new chemical to demonstrate its safety bej^ond a 
reasonable doubt, and that is not up to the public or the Government 
to establish that it may present a hazard. That position is held by the 
Food and Drug Administration with respect to the addition of a chem- 
ical to any food even if, as distinguished from water, the public may 
choose to consume the food or to leave it alone. This approach is most 
important, for frequently there may be some suspicion of hazard cau:-ed 
by a chemical, althougli this cannot be proven either by a preponder- 
ance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is the view of the Food and Drug Administration, nevertheless, 
that it is up to the proponents of the chemical to establish by com])re- 
hensive scientific data that the suspicion is unsound. This position 
was firmly set forth by the former Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration as follows : 

I feel that no new chemical or no chemical that is subject to any question 
as to safety should be employed until its possible injurious effect, both on an 
acute and on a long-time chronic basis, has been shown to be nonexistent. In 


other words, any chemical that is proposed for use ought to be proved in 
advance of distribution in a food product to be utterly and completely vpithout 
the possibility of human injury. 

The same general stand was taken by the council on foods and 
nutrition of the American Medical Association with respect to cer- 
tain surface-active compounds which were being employed in bread 
and various other foods. The council said that : 

Unless the complete harmlessness of these agents can be demonstrated beyond 
a reasonable doubt, they should not, in the council's opinion, be employed in 
basic foods. 

Subsequently, after protracted hearings, the Food and Drug Ad- 
ministration refused to permit the use of these substances in bakery 
products, notwithstanding that it had never been definitely estab- 
lished that the substances would cause harm to humans; and this 
decision was affirmed by the courts. 

There is no dispute that fluorine is an extremely toxic element. 
But it is equally clear that tests of the character advocated by many 
scientists and organizations dealing with the- public health with re- 
spect to the addition of chemicals to foods, have not been conducted 
on animals with water to which a fluoride has been added. It ap- 
pears to be true that the kidneys of the ordinary person in good 
health will excrete almost all of the fluoride ingested through fluori- 
dated water. However, exhaustive research does not appear to have 
been conducted dealing with the effect of fluorine if consumed by 
those — and there are many of them in this country — who have im- 
l^aired kidneys. It has been reported that the fluoride content of pla- 
cental tissue taken from women residing in an area which fluoridates 
its water was considerably higher than the fluoride content of placen- 
tal tissue from women residing in an area whose water supply contains 
merely trace amounts of fluorine. It is not definitely known how 
much, if any, of the fluorine passes to the fetus, or whether or not 
it is harmful to the child. 

The proponents of fluorine have admitted that they rely heavily 
upon epidemiological studies and analyses of the vital statistics of 
communities which have had a natural fluoride in their drinking 
water for many years to prove that inhabitants of such areas are 
not afflicted with any greater numbers of illnesses than persons from 
nonfluoride areas. 

In an epidemiological study, all observations are related to the 
group and it is the group statistics which control. This type of 
study is contrasted with a clinical study, in which the observation 
remains related to the particular individual under study. There are 
many scientists who believe that epidemiological studies and analyses 
of vital statistics cannot be relied upon to conclude with certainty 
whether the physical condition of particular persons, such as those 
with kidney trouble, would or would not be worsened by fluoridated 

It is important to realize that substances have been used for many 
years on the assumption that they were completely safe because it 
liad not been established in advance that they were toxic, and yet it 
was subsequently determined that a hazard to health did in fact 

A few examples are pertinent to indicate the danger of relying 
upon vital statistics or upon studies which do not take into considera- 


tion differing ages, idiosyncrasies and physical conditions. You may 
recall a salt substitute containing lithium chloride which was in use 
for some time. It had not been believed to be unsafe, and it was 
fairly widely used. It was subsequently discovered that to some 
few persons on a low salt diet, lithium chloride was extremely toxic, 
and salt substitutes containing lithium chloride were thereupon re- 
moved from the market. 

Coumarin was used for 75 years as an ingredient of some imitation 
vanilla flavors and as a fixative and base for other synthetic food 
flavors. These flavors were consumed in ice cream, baked goods, and 
other products. Very recently, pharmaceutical studies revealed com- 
prehensive evidence of the capacity of Coumarin to produce damage 
to the liver of experimental animals, and it is no longer used in food 

Dulcin, a syntlietic sweetening agent, was widely used for 50 years. 
No investigation of its possible adverse effects when consumed daily 
in small amounts over a long period of time was conducted until a 
few years ago, when the Food and Drug Administration studied the 

Previous toxicity studies had been content to show that no imme- 
diate ill effects were noted in either man or animals from quantities 
such as would be used for sweetening food. The Food and Drug 
Administration's study of the chronic toxicity of Dulcin extended over 
2 years. It consisted of incorporating Dulcin into the diet of rats 
and observing the effects on growth and survival throughout their 
lifetime. After death, the various organs were examined miscro- 
scopically to see what pathological changes had taken place. The 
data revealed that Dulcin was toxic, and it was removed from our food 

Within the last few years, it was discovered that certain cases of 
serious blood disorders and death were associated with the adminis- 
tration of the antibiotic Chloromycetin. It was only after these deaths 
that it was determined that Chloromycetin should not be used indis- 
criminately for minor ailments, and that when employed, periodic 
blood checks should be made. 

It was discovered fairly recently, also, that a limited number of 
persons reacted most adversely to penicillin and terramycin, other 
of the wonder drugs. This does not mean, of course, that the use of 
these drugs should be discontinued. It means only that they should 
be used when really needed, and only under the most careful medical 

Another example of the fact that long epidemiological studies do 
not necessarily establish freedom from hazard is found in the use 
of certain theretofore approved coal-tar dyes used in coloring foods. 
These dyes were employed for many years. 

Only very recently studies by the Division of Pharmacology of the 
Food and Drug Administration revealed evidence of serious chronic 
toxicity in animals, and a hearing has been held by the agency which 
will presumably result in the outlawing of these colors from future 
use in our food supply. 

In other words, gentlemen, "safety by assumption," based entirely 
on long usage or on studies of vital statistics, would by no means 
appear to be conclusive from a scientific viewpoint. The subtle, in- 


sidioiis effects of a chemical, particularly a highly toxic substance such 
as fluorine, on a limited number of specific persons with various 
chronic disorders, particularly when consumed every day for many 
years, may not be readily recoanized. In fact, as indicated, this may 
be the situation even where great precautions are taken and the 
substance is consumed under medical supervision. 

I respectfully suggest that this be compared with the fact that 
every single person in the city of Washington, young or old, sick 
or well, without any regard to personal allergies or peculiar reactions, 
must necessarily consume a fluoride with every drop of water he 

As stated, the epidemiological studies by the Public Health Service 
revealed no unusual incidence of chronic disease in the naturally 
fluoridated areas of the United States. To repeat, however, there is 
no deiinite knowledge as to the possible long-term effects, particularly 
on adults and children with kidney trouble, and on malnourished 
children. For example, an article in the February 1952 issue of the 
American Dental Association entitled "Relation of Endemic Dental 
Fluorosis to Malnutrition," had this to say : 

Importance of investigations of nutritional status : The data from tliis and 
other investigations suggest that malnourished infants and children, especially 
if deficient in calcium intake, may suffer from the effects of water containing 
fluorine while healthy children would remain unaffected. It is possible that the 
small proportion of individuals who show some, though slight, endemic dental 
fluorosis in communities with only about one part per million of fluorine in the 
water supply do so because of insufficient intake of calcium or because of 
disturbances in calcium metabolism. 

Thus low levels of fluoride ingestion which are generally considered to be safe 
for the general population may not be safe for malnourished infants and children. 
Therefore the nutritional status must be carefully assessed and guarded in areas 
with endemic fluorosis. Nutritional studies should be included in any compre- 
hensive program of fluoridation of water, with special attention to clironically 
ailing infants and children. 

One of the oldest and best known dental research institutions in 
this country is the Forsvth Dental Infirmary in Boston. Its clinical 
research director is Dr. Veikko Oscar Hurme. Dr. Hurme has pointed 
out that fluoridation is mass medication, undertaken without any- 
thing approaching adequate knowledge of the effect of fluorides, or 
the widely varying tolerances of young and old, sick and well. 

The professor emeritus of biochemistry of the University of Wis- 
consin stated that — 

the toxic limit is a tremendously important matter and when we find commu- 
nities ingesting a fluorine content such as indicated and nevertheless have gotten 
along well and apparently have had no recorded pathology, yet we wonder how 
well controlled was the examination and whether there is not something after 
all that did develop that we do not know anything about. 

The director of the nutritional biochemistry laboratories of the 
department of food technology, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology, has testified that the scientific literature does not establish 
that the continued ingestion of fluorine to the extent of one part per 
million in water is harmless; that that literature does not adequately 
answer many pertinent questions; and that in his opinion consider- 
ably more research on the toxicity of fluorine should be conducted 
before that method of reducing tooth decay is extended. 

In order to test on a communitywide basis the effects of adding 
fluorides to water, a series of pilot programs were inaugurated. Not- 


withstanding that these programs have not been conchuled, encourage- 
ment is being given to hundreds of cities to act now rather than await 
the conchision of the programs. Furthermore, and tliis is most impor- 
tant, no comprehensive study is apparently being made in these pilot 
programs of the effect of fluoridated drinking water on adults or the 
aged who may be suffering from impaired kidney function oi- other 
chronic diseases. 

There are those who believe that there may be some hazard but 
who are frank in admitting that they are willing to take what they 
call a calculated risk. 

The following statement of Dr. Francis C. Heyroth, representing 
the National Research Council ad hoc committee on fluoridation of 
water supplies, is pertinent in this connection : 

Question. Is it not true, Doctor, that you can live without sugar, and I suppose, 
witliout sodium chloride or salt, but you have got to have water? 

Dr. IIeykoth. That is right. 

Question. So if a person in the District of Columbia is suffering from kidney 
trouble, I think your advice would be not to drink water. 

Di". IIeyroth. Xo, the advice would be to drink some water that comes from a 
mineral spring that is free from fluorides, which could be done. This man is 
very sick, you see, and that is a prescription for him. 

Question. That is what.he would have to do — he would have to get his water 
privately elsewhere? 

Dr. IIeyroth. He would if it can be established that he is going to be sick 
for the rest of his life, which I doubt very much. He is either going to improve 
his kidney function and then that question is no longer pertinent, or else he is 
going to die, and then it is no longer pertinent. 

Question. Doctor, in your report to the city of Cincinnati dated January 26, 
1951, on page 8, you say this : 

"About 1946, workers of the United States Public Health Service expressed 
the opinion that fluoridation should not be undertaken until epidemiological 
data comparable in reliability to those secured in regard to the incidence of 
caries and mottled enamel had been obtained on the health of old i>eople who 
had lived for long periods in areas of known high and low fluoride concentra- 
tions in the drinking water. Unfortunately, such data have not been provided 
except to a very limited extent." 

Is it not important that such data be provided? 

Dr. Heyroth. I think it is. I put it in this report for the purpose of stimulating 
that sort of work. 

Question. But you did recommend fluoridation? 

Dr. Heyroth. Yes, I did recommend fluoridation. 

You see, we have a calculated risk. Whenever one has to make any decision 
of this sort — shall we or shall we not put fluorides in water — we have to see what 
is the risk on both sides. If we put it in, I think the risk of doing any systemic 
damage to the aged and so on is very, very remote. If we leave it out, we know 
what the risk is in regard to the dental caries that we are not going to eliminate 
in children. 

It is most interesting to note that Dr. Heyroth recommended that 
the city of Cincinnati fluoridates its water supply notwithstanding his 
own opinion that there were a number of health questions which had 
not been answered definitively. Obviously, Dr. Heyroth, and there 
are others, who are perfectly honestly willing to take this calculated 
risk because it seems to them to be a slight risk. But there are numer- 
ous others, both scientists and laymen, who do not believe that such 
a risk should be taken with literally millions of peo])le of all ages 
and varying degrees of health. Particularly do these latter people feel 
that these risks should not be taken since there is no indication what- 
ever that dental decay, disagreeable though it may be, causes serious 

48391 — 54 4 


impairment to health or sliorteiis life, or that one who suffers from 
dental decay may infest or injure his neig-hbors. 

Similarly, there are others who are willing to take a "calculated 
risk" with the mottling of teeth frequently caused even by slight addi- 
tions of a fluoride to drinking water. Thus, a i-epresentative of the 
Association of State and Territorial Health Officers stated that: 

If I had to choose between 10 percent of the community's children having mild 
mottling and 88 percent of them having extensive caries I would unhesitatingly 
choose the mottling. And I have no doubt that I speak for all the State health 
oflScers in making that choice. For that matter, as a father of two appearance- 
conscious teen-agers, I have no hesitation in making the same choice. Nor, they 
assure me, would they. 

Certainly no one can quarrel with a personal decision of that char- 
acter. The short answer, nevertheless, is that other parents may feel 
equally strongly that they would rather take the risk of a few caries 
in their children's teeth, than the hazard of even slight mottling of 
their teeth. 

Gentlemen, this brings up another problem which is of fundamental 
importance, and that is the rights of an individual in a democracy such 
as ours. It is perhaps an old-fasliioned notion that people, even if 
they are in a minority, have a right to be let alone. The adherents of 
this school of thought hold the view that our democratic tradition de- 
mands a respect for the privacy of the individual — a respect for the 
desire of the individual to be let alone even if he is in a minority and 
notwithstanding that most people may think he is wrong. 

.There are many thousands of people in this country who do not 
want either themselves or their parents or children to consume a 
fluoride every day of their lives. They believe that they can protect 
the teeth of their children in many other ways — by topical fluoridation 
which presents no danger and which has been strongly endorsed by the 
Public Health Service; by periodic vists to their dentists; by seeing 
to it that their children brush their teeth regularly and do not con- 
sume large quantities of sweets and carbonated beverages. 

It is true that the rights of the individual sometimes have to be 
subjugated to the rights of the majority, particularly where there is 
danger to health and the possibility of hazard to others. Persons who 
are not vaccinated may contract smallpox, become disfigured, and die. 
In addition, and even more important, they may infect their neigh- 
bors. The impelling concept that the community health must be pro- 
tected requires that the wishes of the individual, including even those 
of persons who may suffer some adverse reaction, be submerged and 

Even so, it is a physician who administers the medication and ob- 
serves the patient. Fluoridated water, however, must be consumed 
by all of us, and without the interposition or supervision of our doc- 
tor or dentist. In addition, we will not infect the community if we do 
not drink fluoridated water. Those who wish to give their children 
a fluoride — and they are entitled to hold that opinion — can do so 
readily by the use of fluoride tablets. The wishes of those who do not 
desire their children to consume fluorides, and seek to rely on other 
methods of reducing dental decay, should be equally respected. 

Another example is the chlorination of public drinking water. We 
must chlorinate our water to prevent disease and perhaps epidemics. 


Here, arain, the rights of the iiKlivi(hial must give way to those of the 
conimiinity. In any event, it is interesting to note that chlorine may 
be removed, by those who so desire, by heating the water, and that 
chlorine, as distinguished from fluorine, has no physiological effects 

upon the body. 

There is no doubt that the fluoridation progi-am constitutes medica- 
tion, and medication which all of us must accept. The therm "dnig" 
is defined, in part, in section 201 (g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, miti- 
o-ation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, 
and articles intended to affect the structure of any function of the 
body of man or other animals. 

Medicine deals with the prevention, cure, and alleviation of disease. 
A reduction of the incidence of dental disease is the aim of fluorida- 
tion. It is safe to say that fluoridation is mass medication without 
parallel in the history of medicine. An analogy is vaccination, which 
is designed to prevent smallpox and not to treat persons who are 
afficted with the disease. 

I should like to conclude by quoting from the message of the Presi- 
dent to the Congress in January of this year. This is what the 
President said, in part : 

Freedom, consent, and individual responsibility are fundamentals to our 
system in the field of medical care. This means that the traditional relationship 
of the physicians and his patient, and the right of the individual to select 
freely the manner of his care in illness, must be preserved. 

I suggest, gentlemen, that the parents of this community and other 
communities should have the right to have their children treated 
with fluoridated water or otherwise as they so desire. 

The Chaieman. Are there any questions? 

If not, we thank you, Mr. Kleinfeld, for your appearance. We 
realize that you have given a great deal of time in the preparation of 
the statement which you have made to the committee today, and we ap- 
preciate having the benefit of it in the consideration of this subject. 
We thank you. 

Mr. Kleinfeld. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairmax. The committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock. 

(Thereupon, at 12 : 30 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day.) 


The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 

Congressman Philbin has called my attention to the fact that Miss 
Florence Birmingham, president of the Massachusetts Women's 
Political Club is in the room and that she has an engagement that 
requires her to leave early, and I will hear from Miss Birmingham at 
this time. 


Miss Bir:mingiiam. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
the president of the Massachusetts Women's Political Club, a non- 
partisan, nonsectarian oroanization, representing approximately 
60,0(10 women in that State.^ 


For a good many years we have been fighting against fluoridation 
in the public water supply and, therefore, I have come here to put 
this organization on record against fluoridation, and in favor of the 
principle contained in this billH. R. 2341, 

I should like to ask unanimous consent that my remarks be extended 
in the record. 

The Chairmak. You certainly will have that privilege. I have had 
handed to me your statement on behalf of the organization that you 
represent, and while I have not had the opportunity to read it in full, 
yet I can see j^ou have given a great deal of attention to the study and 
we appreciate having the beneflt of the views that you have expressed. 

There have been several Members of Congress who have spoken 
to me with reference to your interest in the subject and I might say 
to you that when you come here with Congressmen like Philip J. 
Philbin, who is so outstanding, you are in good company. 

Miss BiR3iixGiiAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Con- 
gressman Philbin is an honorary member of our organization. 

The Chairman. You are honored in having him represent you. 

Miss Birmingham. Thank you very much. We feel that way. 

(The statement of Miss Birmingham follows:) 

Statement by Miss Florence Birmingham, President, Massachusetts 
Women's Political Club 

The Massachusetts Women'?; Political Club is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian 
organization, dedicated to teacliing women tlie need for good government and 
educating them how best to use their political power and strength. It is over 
30 years old. As its president, I am here to place our organization on record 
against fluoridation of water supplies and thus in favor of H. R. 2341. 

For the past several years we have been engaged in fighting fluoridation as a 
'threat to our liberty in that it is mass medication "without parallel in the 
history of medicine." The battle has been long and arduous as the Public 
Health Department, backed by generous funds allotted to it by the Congress, 
iias pushed fluoridation with a savage ferocity. 

When I was appointed trustee of Wrentham State School for Feebleminded 
Children, I learned there quite by accident that fluorine was used in the water 
supply. A trustee takes a solemn oath before the Governor and council. There- 
fore, I felt obligated to study this subject very carefully in order that the children 
might be protected. Many of them are State wards who have nobody else to- 
look out for their interests. 

I mentioned my fears to the board of trustees and told them that in our 
organization we had studied the Menace to Health of Fluorine published by the 
Univerity of New Mexico in 1938 and knew fluoridation was harmfui. The 
trustees requested me to investigate and inform them of my findings. I studied 
both sides of the fiuoridation issue. It took me a long time to fit the pieces 
together in the fluoridation scheme at the institution, for information was 
given most reluctantly. 

Although the section of the law governing certain powers and duties of trus- 
tees states, "All trustees shall have free access to all books, records, and accounts 
pertaining to their respective State hospitals," I could learn nothing of the- 
fluoridation experiment in progress there. 

Dr. William D. Welock, director, division of dental health, of the Massachu- 
setts Department of Public Health, referred me to a special report, in reply to 
my query asking why, of all institutions, schools for the feebleminded children- 
should 1 e chosen. This report of 1045 mentioned Department of Mental Health 
In?titutions. A subsequent report, he said, named Wrentham State School, the 
Belchertown State School, and the Fernald State School as selected studies for 
the fluoridation of water supplies in this State. However, this report like so 
many key documents was out of print, I was told. 

In" the fourth annual conference. State dental directors with the Public Health. 
Service and the Children's Bureau held in the Federal Security Building. Wash- 
ington, D. C, in .lune 1951, Dr. John W. Knutson, Chief of Dental Public Health,. 


stated frankly that the Public Health Service did not get around to approving 
water tluoridation until 5 years later. And yet they imposed tins upon the little 
helpless wards of the State, not only in Massachusetts but in other parts of the 
Nation such as the State school in Southbury, Conn. 

In that year studies were begun in selected areas throughout the country, all 
under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. 

Dr. Frank Bull, of Wisconsin, in the fourth annual conference explained "Inci- 
dentally, we never had any experiments in AVisconsin. To take a city of 100,000 
and say, "We are going to experiment on you, and if you survive we will learn 
something' — that is kind of rough treatment on the public. In Wisconsin, we 
set up demonstrations. They weren't experiments." 

In :>lassachusetts, they were studies. 

The trustees voted to halt tluoridation, but to my shocked surprise we were 
told by the department that it was not an experiment and the fluoridation con- 
tinues on. And I still knew nothing specific about the setup at the school. How- 
■ever, I intensified my efforts to awaken the public to the threat to our liberty 
inherent in the program. 

Natural water is a right the individual can expect from his municipality. In 
the use of that right no individual should be obliged to take a preventive medi- 
cine, especially when that medicine is a rat poison for which there is no known 

Sodium fluoride is made from scrap aluminum. This former waste product is 
bringing in millions of dollars to the chemical companies and machinery 

As an American citizen, I was frightened when I saw the "iron curtain" of 
secrecy surrounding every phase of the fluoridation scheme. All the more so 
when i found in the files a letter revealing that Dr. Wellock, of the Public Health 
Department, had come to the institution school and in a conference with admin- 
istrative officials warned them there should be no publicity on the fluorine pro- 
gram there. In other words, I should not be enlightened. 

We maintain that if this had been a bona fide ethical and true scientific 
arrangement, those who instigated fluoridation in the school would not have 
feared explaining it to the trustees who represent the public. The shroud of 
secrecy was terrifying to nie, especially when it cloaked up an experiment upon 
feebleminded wards of the State who should have been treated with mcn-e scrupu- 
lous cai-e, if anything, because of their pathetic condition. Many of these little 
children live out their lives in the institution and are buried in the graveyard 
on its grounds with none but the angels to \\eep for them. 

Archbishop Richard J. Gushing, of Boston, has said that such little children 
were put into the world to make us kinder and more gentle, for they are close to 
the saints. 

It was not until January 1953 that I learned about the experiment. It came 
through a book published by the Department of Public Health, called Common- 
wealth, given to me by a medical doctor who condemns fluoridation. Fluorida- 
tion was established in two schools of the feebleminded as a result of studies 
being carried on in various parts of the country. Wrentham and Belchertown 
State schools were fluoridated and became the pilot, but Fernald was maintained 
as the control station — no fluorides being added to the water there. 

"Similar studies," said the senior sanitary engineer, "have been conducted 
on a citywide basis at Newburgh, N. Y. with the neighboring city of Kingston 
serving as a control. In Michigan, Grand Rapids undertook a similar study with 
Muskegon, the neighbor city, acting as the nonparticipating guide. O er a (j- 
year period a reduction of nearly 50 percent in tooth decay has already been 
noted among children of Grand Rapids and Newburgh. 

Dr. P.uU of Wisconsin told the dental officers from all over the Nation bluntly 
that the statistics gathered by the prefluoridation survey among elementary 
school — an essential step in mining a local propaganda field — are for the only 
purpose of building up the fluoridation program in any local area. To these 
dental health directors from all over the country he said. "Now why should 
we do a prefluoridation survey? Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. 
We have told the public it works. So we cannot go back on that." 

Moreover, in contradiction of the sanitary engineer's statement Grand Rapids 
was no longer paired off with Muskegon. On page 1500 of the hearings before 
the special congressional committee investigating fluoridation Dr. Bruce D. 
Forsyth said, "I believe this. We should continue to go back each year and 
study Grand Rapids population as we have been doing. We can even go back 


to Muskegon although we have lost our control city there. They felt they 
wanted the water fluoridated and so it is being fluoridated, and so we have 
lost it as a control. But we certainly want to go back each year and do re- 

In such perfectly childish language Dr. Forsyth confessed the loss of the con- 
trol, which it was convenient to lose, a blunder for which a scientist can never 
be forgiven. 

The CIO Union, local number 396, at Wrentham State School, publicly pro- 
tested fluoridation of water supplies and experimentation on human beings 
without their consent. The union president said : "We told the board of trustees 
and the superintendent that we strongly objected to being used as guinea pigs 
in this experiment which the administration at the institution now admits openly 
in the press was put into effect as an experiment. But they do nothing to 
stop it. 

"We object to wild claims being made as to its benefits, so-called, at the insti- 
tution ; we object to the fact that it is not only a slow poison which can cause- 
grave illness and death, but it is still being used no matter how we object. We 
protest to the lack of understanding of our concern and worry which has to 
our knowledge affected the health of employees mentally and physically. 

"The method used in putting fluorine in the water at the State school is 
enough to cause panic at the institution among employees. 

"Every employee at the school knows that the engineer has nothing to do 
with. A boy patient does it, and the electrician drives him to the watershed, or 
pumping station for the school, which is about 3 miles from the institution. 
This working patient is an assistant to the electrician, who is not an engineer. 

"I had a long conversation with this working patient who goes to the water 
station almost every day. He knows what it is, for he said, 'Come up with 
me and I can show you how I can take care of you if I get mad at you. Your life 
is in my hands now.' 

"There is no fence around the building or pumping station where they put in. 
the fluorine. In fact, no fence for miles around. Anybody could poison the 
whole institution. There are no warning signs at all. Imagine what could 
happen if some of the boys escaped, and not knowing that this is rat poison, 
broke into the watershed and threw fluorine about." 

Yet the administration stated publicly they were not consulted when the De- 
partment of Public Health decided to launch the experiment. 

This statement brings us back again to the United States Public Health De- 
partment which has pushed this experiment by use of taxpayers' money without 
the consent of citizens who stand helpless before the combined power of the 
Federal Treasury, equipment concerns, and the chemical industry. 

The special congressional committee of the Congress, in Report No. 2500, on 
fluoridation of public drinking water, advised communities to go slow on fluor- 
idation, but did not recommend Federal legislation. 

We deem siich legislation necessary as the Public Health Department inso- 
lently shrugged off the recommendations of the committee, and through its cen- 
tralized agencies has used its vast resources to place fluorine in the drinlving 
water without even informing the citizens. This was done in Salem and Beverly 
in Massachusetts where fluorine was polluting the water months before they were 
aware of it. 

The Public Health Department is flouting the food and drug laws. In Massa- 
chusetts Mr. Cyril C. Sullivan, former Chief Inspector of the Food and Drug Ad- 
ministration for New England, until his retirement from Federal service, de- 
tected a small amount of fluorides being added to beer and ale as a preservative ; 
that is to stop afterfermentation in the bottle. The amount added was so small 
that it could scarcely be detec-ted by chemical analysis of the product, being less 
than 0.5 part per million. The case came up for trial and the court and jury 
found defendants guilty. They held that the offense was of such a serious char- 
acter that the defendant corporation of Springfield was fined $5,000, and the de- 
fendant personally was also fined $5,000 and in addition, a jail sentence of 6 
months was imposed and suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation 
for a period of 3 years. (See JJ. S. v. Commonwealth Brewing Co., D. C. Mass. 

The same procedure should be followed in the case of fluorine in water supplies. 
Since the Food and Drug Administration is now winking at the violation of whole- 
sale fluoridation, a legislation must be enacted to correct the situation. H. R. 
2341 should be passed as an emergency measure. 


If this mass experimentation upon liunian beings is not ended, then the com- 
plete dignity of man will be lost in the totalitarian mass medication fraud and 
the end will' be wholesale adoption of euthanasia and death by the needle for the 
weakly and unwanted. Fluoridation is the opening wedge. The January issue 
of Red Book magazine quotes an anonymous "highly respectable" physician as 
confessing to putting people out of the way. "I think," he says, "that mercy 
killing undoubtedly goes on more frequently than many of us would believe * * * 
To some it is murder whatever the circumstances * * * And murder, we know, 
is wrong * * * Mercy killings will go on, whatever we try to do about it." 

In Loudon the needle is being talked about as a new method of execution. The 
issue is being raised, "Would doctors who agree to administer a death injection 
be breaking the Hippocratic oath which every doctor swears at the outset of his 

The oath declares, "I will give no deadly drug to any though it be asked of me 
nor will I counsel such * * *." 

We may ask, "Does a doctor advocating addition of fluorine, a most powerful 
rat and roach poison for which there is no known antidote, to drinking water 
break the Oath of Hippocrates which he also has to take?" We believe he does. 

The passage of this legislation would solve this problem and safeguard the 
citizens' liberty and health. We pray that this committee will act favorably upon 
H. R. 2341. 

Re Chonological history of the fluoridation hoax or Operation Rat 
Poison in Three Installments. 

To Members of the General Court: 

It is time we were calling a spade a spade. The more research we do, the 
more corrupt this whole fluoridation scheme appears. Several public-spirited 
citizens have helped us compile and print three installments giving the entire 
history and purpose of the fluoridation hoax. The first installment enclosed is 
the longest and outlines the chronological history of it. The two shorter install- 
ments to follow will give substantiating proof of the facts as outlined in this 

These articles should serve to awaken our State legislature to the fact that 
this fluoridation problem is more important than new highways, new taxes, or 
new hospitals. 

When all the insidious ramiflcations of this mass medication scheme are 
known to the public, its true significance will make the Teapot Dome scandal of 
30 years ago appear picayune by comparison. The latter was an illicit profit 
for a few and its scandal is said to have killed only one — a President. Fluori- 
dation is heavy commercial profit for a few but entails the destruction of human 
tissues, health, life, and the constitutional rights of millions. 

If the legislature should fail in its duty to the public, it will necessitate the 
bringing of this whole sordid mess directly to the people in each local community 

Now, as never before, we need men and women like those of our colonial days 
who stood resolutely for that which was right even though it meant opposing 
the autocratic power of the crown. 

]\Iassachusetts Women's Political Club, 
Florence Birmingham, President. 

Part I. Fli:okidation a Hoax or Opebation Rat Poison 

Fluoridation is a deceitful and illegal sales promotion of a deadly poison by 
a Government agency. It is more repugnant politically than "taxation without 
representation." It is more insidiously devastating than communism in Govern- 
ment. It is more destructive to our populous than crime or juvenile delin- 
quency. It is slow creeping mass murder for a profit and it is as illegal as 
murder. It is a colossal fraud because it takes the public's money without 
giving in return any scientifically proven therapeutic value. All claims of 
benefit to children's teeth are based on unproven, misconstrued, misinterpreted, 
and superficial facts. 

The wi-iters hereof can and shall prove each and every statement above if 
the reader will read this and further installments. 

The truth about fluoridation has been and still is being suppressed. How else 
have so many cities been able to pour this "rat poison" into the city water 
supply without the knowledge of the citizens who are forced to drink it? If 


there is any doubt in your mind tliat sodium ilouride, the substance they pro- 
pose to put in our pure New England water is a poison, see the United States 
Dispensatory, the official medical compendium 24th edition, page 1465, available 
in your drugstore. It reads, "Fluorides are violent poisons to all living tissue 
because of their precipitation of calcium. They cause fall of blood pressure, 
respiratory failure, and general paralysis." 

Why is it tliat you can question at random 100 people in any city now using 
fluoridated water and find none that know the truth about it, only a few that 
know they are drinking it, and those that did see a little notice in the paper 
had heard only that it was good for their kiddies' teeth? 

How and why have they l)een able to dose the water supply of over S37 American 
communities serving 1.5,500.000 people with this rat nnd cockroach poison and 
yet have it brought to popular vote in only ('0 conununitiesV In 40 of these 60 
communities where a semblance of publicity was forced by a few irate citizens, 
it was roundly defeated. In the other 20, only one side of the issue was given 
the unsuspecting public. How 15,500,000 intelligent Americans liave become 
docile guinea pigs to a mass medical experiment with a deadly poison is unques- 
tionably the colossal hoax of the century. Just how was this possible? It 
couldn't have been done 100 years ago when we had a Government of the people, 
b.v the people, and for the people. 

It can and has happened here — and will continiie its nefarious progress imless 
the public learns the truth. Lincoln said "if this Nation is ever destroyed it 
will be destroyed by enemies from within, not from without." 

Yes, dear citizen, you are witnessing the price we pay by our apathetic attitude 
of "let George do it" or "what can I do, I'm only one little guy"? Wlien the 
people lose interest, the overlords expand their power until eventually we 
become helpless vassals. It has already happened to 10 percent of our popula- 
tion, who have been sold a bill of goods with every effort made to keep the truth 
from them as we shall prove herein. 


A high pressure sales campaign on the part of the United States Government 
agency to illegally impose mass medication of an unsuspecting and uninformed 
public, by using the prestige of a Government department to control press releases, 
influence dental associations, local health departments, and PTA's. That same 
agency has distributed, postage free, at taxpayers' expense, tons of propaganda 
blinding the taxpayer to the truth. Every high-pressure sales trick in the book 
has been used to get the equipment installed and the poison poured into the 
drinking water with a minimum of publicity and before those v^-ho take a sincere 
interest in their community could put up a roadblock. This mass medication has 
been done in violation of Federal laws, of State laws, and of our constitutional 
rights. It has been done under conditions of duress, withoiit our knowledge or 
consent, and with no reasonable chance to escape. (See article on Legal Aspects 
of Fluoridation.) Furthermore, fluoridation aside from its legal aspects is a 
crime against the laws of God and man. 


The chronological history 

First step. — Dr. George W. Heard, a dentist of Hereford, Tex., some 30 years 
ago announced that the soil in Deaf Smith County was so rich in minerals that 
there was hardly a toothache in the county. Twenty-three years later, other 
dentists investigated and came away with the erroneous conclusion that it might 
be due to the fluorine in the water, since its concentration seemed high. 

As against this conclusion, Dr. Heard himself says : 

"With this I do not concur. Fluorine in water is a deadly poison, inorganic, 
and cannot be properly assimilated b.v the human organism. It is purely an 
inorganic drug. Fluorine in soil and water is not a food, but plant life grown in 
this soil converts this mineral, which is a poison, into food values which prevent 

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary bears out Dr. Heard's contention : "All 
such mineral elements must first be absorbed by plantlife and taken into the 
animal body as food before they can be assimilated." 

Dr. Heard also states that in spite of the fluorine in the water which is the 
same today as 30 years ago, the percent of decay in the teeth in Hereford today 


is 40 percent. This would certainly tend to indicate that it was not fluorine but 
our increased use of refined foods that is the real culprit behind decayed teeth. 
(Excerpts from report to City Council, San Bruno, Calif., which report helped 
to defeat fluoridation.) 

Second step. — Sodium fluoride is a poisonous byproduct of the aluminum and 
the fertilizer industries. Like all companies efiicient management strives for 
the profitable use of all byproducts. Up until recently the only commercial uses 
for sodium fluoride were as rat and cockroach poisons but these used only a 
small proportion of the output. 

Its disposition created quite a problem. They were not permitted to dump it 
into rivers for it would poison the fishes and users downstream. When it was 
dumped into fields, the vegetation grown near it killed animals. What to do? 

Apparently someone conceived the brilliant idea of taking advantage of the 
erroneous conclusions drawn from Deaf Smith County, Tex. The Aluminum 
Company of America then began selling sodium fluoride tablets to put in 
the drinking water to prevent dental caries in children 6 to 16 years. In their 
magazine ads they suggested that readers write them for full information 
about having the city fathers add fluorine to the city water supply. But 
this method must have proved too slow for the campaign was soon stepped up 
with a vengeance. 

2'hird step. — In 1&44 Oscar Ewing was put on the payroll of the Aluminum 
Company of America, as attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. This fact 
was established at a Senate hearing and became a part of the Congressional 
Record. Since the Aluminum Co. had no big litigation pending at the time, the 
question might logically be asked, why such a large fee? A few months there- 
after Mr. Ewing was made Federal Security Administrator with the announce- 
ment that he was taking a big salary cut in order to serve his country. As head 
of the Federal Security Agency (now the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare) he immediately started the ball rolling to sell "rat poison" by the 
ton instead of in dime packages. How? 

By using the pressure of the Federal Government he induced the city fathers 
of Newburgh, N. Y., Grand Rapids, Mich., and Evanston, 111., to try a 10-year 
experiment with fluoridation "to actually determine the effects of this 'rat 
poison' upon the dental caries of growing children." This was in 1945. The 
Nurenberg trials against Nazi criminals for experimenting on humans started in 

Thus we see the paradox in which one Department of the Government is prose- 
cuting 23 Nazis as arch criminals for illegally experimenting on human beings 
without their consent. In said trials the fact that humans were used as 
"experimental" guinea pigs outraged the conscience of the civilized world as 
being a crime against the fundamental laws of God and the inalienable rights 
of man. Some were hanged, others received long time sentences. But, at about 
this same time, we see another department of our Government (leli))erately 
committing the same illegal criminal act en masse against its own people in the 
name of "medical therapeutics." 

Fourth step. — But was Mr. Ewing content to await the 10-year duration of 
the experiment? No — rat poison must be sold. Besides, the word "experi- 
ment" had by this time become distasteful. Possibly they figured that the best 
defense is ollVnsc, so to connt^Tuct this criminal charge of "mass experimenta- 
tion" they put pressure everywhere to boost the sales of "rat poison" just as if 
it were a foregone conclusion that experimental work was not necessary. Nev- 
ertheless, it most certainly was an experiment and was so recognized in a letter 
by the United States Public Health Service and by the Delaney congressional 
committee investigating the fluoridation of public drinking water. But, like 
the Nazi experiments on human guinea pigs, it most certainly was not "scientific." 

In reality it was a sales promotion scheme. More appropriately, it should 
be called an experiment of expediency to sell sodium fluoride (rat poison) under 
the utterly unsubstantiated guise of helping dental caries in the youngsters. 
At this point let us emphasize that "thei'e is no true scientific evidence to show 
that children's teeth are actually benefited by sodium fluorine being dumped 
into the water, despite all tlie pseudo testimony given before the Delaney com- 
mittee by the profluoridators, as we shall prove later. The claim of 50 per- 
cent reduction of dental caries positively cannot be scientifically substantiated. 

Local health authorities, parent-teachers associations, local and national dental 
associations were all approached by the stooges of the master salesman, Ewing. 
In a letter to Michael Ambrose, Ewing insists that fluoridation "should be pushed 


vigorously." Thus, with the backing of tlie United States Government, and 
millions of the taxpayers' money to spend on unsubstantiated and unscientific 
propaganda, such a sales promotion program would give even rat poison the 
flavor of bon-bons and the smell of Chanel No. 5. Is it any wonder that local 
city and town officials were swept off their feet and felt sure they could be doing 
no wrong by imposing this mass medication experiment on the unsuspecting and 
iminformed pul)lic. After all, wasn't the United States Government urging it? 
Let us digress to remind these local officials that the Nazi war criminals also 
thought they were doing no wrong. They pleaded that the orders came from "the 
highest possible German authority" — others pleaded pressxire from above or that 
the experiments were for the ultimate ))enefit of der vaterland, or that they did 
it for the scientijfic advancement of all mankind. Nevertheless the judges and an 
enraged world opinion decided that the experiments were in no sense scientific but 
were in reality political expediency and that they violated the fundamental God- 
given rights of free individuals, that such rights could not be abrogated by anyone 
under any conditions. Result — the rope tightened about their necks. Once our 
people learn the real truth atiout Operation Rat Poison there might well be some 
necktie parties over here. Such predicaments develop only where men sacrifice 
principle for expediency. 

Fifth step. — In 1952 it was hoped by thousands of thinking people that a change 
in the administration would put an end to this illegal mass medication experi- 
ment with rat poison. We should have known better. We should have known 
that once anyone joins an illegal racket you just don't quit at will. Things had 
gone too far. The public had been kept in the dark. The perpetrators of this 
poison scheme were safe. Rat poison sales had jumped. Dental associations, 
PTA's, and city fathers had been sucked in by innuendos, half truths, and un- 
scientific statements. They had had too much faith in the utterly fallacioiis 
principle of the infallibility of Government. They believed what they were told 
solely because of who was telling them, and not because of factual scientific 

So, regardless of what our hopes were when Mrs. Oveta Hobby took over the 
Federal Security Agency, and regardess of how good her intentions may have 
been, she too was caught in the whirlpool from which there was no escape. Over- 
night her agency became a full-fledged department known as Health, Education, 
and Welfare and she gained full Cabinet status. But what doomed the hopes of 
the antifluoridators was when they saw Mr. Nelson Rockefeller appointed as 
Mrs. Hobby's assistant with the title of Under Secretary. The Rockefellers own 
or control the aluminum trust, chemical fertilizers, and drug syndicates. They 
wield abject control over more authoritative medical research than any single 
group in the world through the instrument of the Rockefeller Foundation. Col- 
leges and universities are beholden to it for millions in grants. If any ex- 
perimenter to whom the Rockefeller Foundation has donated turns up evidence 
that helps sell Rockefeller chemicals, the chances are good that they will re- 
ceive another grant. They control the news releases by controlling millions in 
advertising. Newspapers avoid bucking them for fear of financial advertising 

So Operation Rat Poison goes merrily on in high gear. For .5 years the United 
States Public Health Service, a division of this department had not been too 
enthusiastic about fluoridation and actually opposed it. But, overnight that has 
changed and now they give their blessing. Did they obtain long drawn-out ex- 
perimental evidence overnight, or did they receive orders from above? Most cer- 
tainly scientific evidence is not so quickly obtained. So, now with the United 
States Health Service openly pushing fluoridation Operation Rat Poison is mak- 
ing wonderful strides wherever the whole truth is not told to the public. Sub- 
stantiating proof for above, to follow in next installment. 

Re second installment of fluoridation hoax. 

To the Members of the Oeneral Court: 

As promised we offer herewith the second installment of operation rat poison. 

This one gives the substantiating scientific proof to the bold statement made 
in the first installment ; namely, that the profluoridators have positively no con- 
clusive scientific proof of their contention that the adding of sodium fluoride 
to the drinking water can in any way help the teeth of children. 

The sources given herein are authentic and many are from unimpeachable 
scientific data made before the selfish sale of rat poison became a Government 
political football. 


We .give duta from Funk and \Va,i:iialls, the ITnited States Department of Agri- 
■cultnre Yearbook 1939 (before Kwinii), the University of Mexico and Arizona 
find doctors operating in that area where Uuoriue has been a problem fcjr years ; 
\also statements of medical men made when the scientific truth was more im- 
portant than i)oltical expediency. 

Our legislators certainly realize that with political backing many sufticient 
pseudotruths can be broadcast that will fool all who do not take the time to 
investigate. We are all victims of such propaganda as regards fluorine. We are 
not getting the scientitic truth. As Senator Miller put it, he was convinced that 
one presumed authoritative source was simply repeating the other, with none 
having done any scientific work and each feeling safe because it had a Govern- 
ment agency's blessing — a modern version of '"the king can do no wrong." 

Massachusetts Women's Political Club, 
FLOitENCE Birmingham, President. 

Part II. Fluoridation, a Hoax or Operation Rat Poison 


A poison 

Section 20703 of the Health and Safety Code of tlie State of California defines 
fluorides soluble in water as poison. 

Section 2(»751 makes it unlawful to vend, sell, give away, or furnish either 
directly or indirectly any poison enumerated in section 20703 without a poison 

The Massachusetts Legislature owes it to the people of Massachusetts to pass 
a law that will prohibit the poisoning and polluting of our water. The law should 
be made specific to counteract the propaganda of the United States Department 
of Health whose authority apparently changes the universal chemical action of 
God-made elements. 

Here is some testimony before the Delaney House Investigating Committee: 

'•Dr. Miller: 'If you told people you put rat poison in water to cure (dental) 
•caries it might raise several eyebrows.' 

"Dr. Alfred Taylor, Ph. D. : 'After all it is a fact, that's about the only way 
that you can bring home the fact — I know of no other chemicals used in food or 
drink which is toxic enough to be u.sed as a practical poison.' " 

Dental aspects 

Tlie United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1939, Food and Life : 

"Fluorine has been shown to be the cause of a disfiguring dental disease known 
as mottled enamel or fluorosis. Fluorine interferes with normal calcification of 
teeth during the process of their formation, .so that teeth, in addition to being 
unusually discolored and ugly in appearance, are structurally weak and deterio- 
rate early in life. For this reason it is especially important that fluorine be 
avoided * * *." 

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary gives the following definition : 

"Fluorosis, a disease coming from the ingestion of too much fluorine, is a well- 
■established toxicological entity, characterized by increased fragility of bones, 
due to their atrophy, and interestingly enough by enamel defects in teeth, 
•exposing them to early decay." 

Thus we see that fluorine produces the very opposite effect to that which 
fluorine added to drinking water is supposed to achieve. Chemical inorganic 
fluorine must not be contused witli the fluorine that nature has organized into 
food. Chemical inorganic fluorine tends to harden the teetli to a point where 
they become very brittle and later crumble. This early unnatural hardening 
process has been misinterpreted by profluoridators as reducing tooth decay in 
childi-en. Those dentists who are avidly encouraging fluoridation to help the 
kiddies teeth will find in years to come those same teeth will ci'umble under 
the grinding machine and tliey* will be unable to do tlieir usual excellent job. 

Demarious C. Badger, M. D., pediatrician, of Hobbs, N. Mex., which is in a 
fluorine area, says : 

"It is my opinion that if fluorine is in drinking water to the extent of seven- 
tenths parts per million that a fair majority of eliildren will develop a defect 
in their permanent teeth, providing this water is ingested in the first 6 years 
•of life. I have formed this opinion because I live in an endemic area of dental 
fluorosis where fluorine content is one part per million. I have gone over the 


school children who have been born and raised here, and have fovind that 
about 35 percent of the children have a moderate defect in their permanent 

This was a personal communication from Dr. Badger to Mrs. Golda Franzen, 
San Francisco, Calif. Dr. Badger continues: 

"If the level of fluorine is above 0.7 part per million, then children under 3 
years of age, and preferably under 6, should use Altered or distilled water in 
order to prevent a defect in their permanent teeth, which are forming during 
these years." 

It should be noted that the proposed concentration of fluorides in our Massa- 
chusetts water is to be one part per million, or above the level set by Dr. Badger. 

Dr. M. C. Smith and Prof. H. V. Smith, University of Arizona, Tucson, in. 
Observations on Durability of Mottled Enamel : 

"To one who is familiar with the disfiguring dental defect known as mottled 
enamel, which affects the teeth of every person who drinks water containing 
as little as one part per million of fluorine during the years of tooth formation, 
this recommendation seems, to put it mildly, unsafe. 

"There is ample evidence that mottled teeth, though they be somewhat more 
resistant to the onset of decay, are structurally weak, and that unfortunately 
when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous. The chart graphically 
represents the result of a survey of the situation in St. David, Ariz. The survey 
includes the adult group so that a truer picture of the durability of mottled teeth 
could be obtained." 

Dr. Max Ginns, senior consultant on the staff of Worcester (Mass.) City Hos- 
pital, a graduate of Tufts College Dental School and a practicing dentist since 
1914, made some personal investigations. He was first an advocate of fluorida- 
tion. After visiting the fluorine areas he said : 

"The enormous amount of tooth decay and crooked teeth so shocked me that I 
then began to question all of the propai^anda al)out beneflts of fluoridation. 
My disillusionment with the entire fluoridation program was complete when I 
learned that in these areas people were drinking Osarka (spring) water to avoid 
mottling and decay." — Boston Traveler, July 1, 19.">2. 

Medical aspects 

Qualified medical men and scientists make the following statement regarding 
fluorine : 

"Increases fragility of bones."— Dr. Gutnian, M. D. 

"Disastrous effect upon goiter." — G. Steyn, South African Medical Journal, 
printed in New Bedford, Mass., Standard-Times, March 11, I'.KjI. 

"Hardening of the arteries ; gastrointestinal disturbances : disorders of the 
respiratory system ; disorders of the cardiac system." — Dr. IMcLester, M. D. 

"Brittle bones." — Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 

"Mottling and discoloration of teeth ; pitting of enamel ; spotty baldness in 
young men ; decrease in clotting power of blood ; anemia ; interferes with trans- 
missions of nerve impulses ; affects metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, and pro- 
teins."— Dr. Jonathan Forman, B. A., M. D., F. A. C. A., head of Ohio State Medi- 
cal Association. 

"Lethal ingredient in rat poison." — C. R. Wells, American Dental Association. 

"Increases sterility ; decreases the birthrate." — Dr. J. Larner, M. D. 

"Dr. Alfred Taylor, Ph. D., one of the leading research scientists of the 
Nation, found that fluoridated water in a concentration of one part per million 
did shorten the life span of mice destined to die of cancer. It did cause a con- 
sistent increase in death rate of hatching eggs. As a result of these findings, 
26 Te as cities have held u]) plans for fluoridating." — Personal communication 
from Dr. Alfred Taylor to Mrs. Marion E. Lyon. 

Dr. Leo Spira, M. D., Ph. D., who has spent 2.5 years of clinical investigations 
regarding fluorine poisoning and fluoridation of man and experimental research 
on animals, many of whose scientific reports havQ been printed in various pub- 
lications writes : 

"Fluorine is a highly toxic substance, and its deleterious effect consists of de- 
priving the body of calcium stored in the body as a material indispensable for 
sustaining the vitality of most of the organic functions. 

"You no doubt realize that even the 70-90 percent of fiuorines are not elim- 
inated without first doing damage to the body. This amount of fluorine has 
passed through the entire body, and has affected every tissue before it has 
eliminated, mainly through the kidneys. The 10-30 percent of fluorine re- 
tained exert a cumulative action on the body." 


"It is true, these quantities (amouuts used in fluoridation) are not sufficient 
to produce acute fluorine poisoning and kill tlie victim witliin liours of in^^estion ; 
but, owing to the cumulative nature of the poison, that is to say, owln.u to the 
fact that some of the poison ingested is retained in the body, a time will come 
when the tissues are irreparably damaged. This means a slow, gradual death. 

"Grand Rapids, Mich., the only city which has had artiticial fiuoridatiou for 
more than 4 years, showed the following signilicaut facts: Deaths from heart 
disease and it's complications increased from 585 in 1944 as compared with 1,031 
in 1949. The deaths from nephritis (kidney disease) and intracranial lesions 
both increased 50 percent in the 4-year period. The population increase, however, 
was only 7.8 percent. A new method of tabulating deaths was inaugurated in 
1949, so'that flgures beyond that are not applicable." 

Fluorine versus chlorine aspects 

To the layman who might ask, "If they can put chlorine in the Vvater, why can't 
they put fluorine?" Chlorine is put in the water as a police power to protect the 
public from contamination due to germs. Fluorine on the other hand is not put 
in to protect the public as a whole, but as a therapeutic agent in the hope that 
it will help dental caries in certain ages of children. Chlorine is used to treat the 
^-ater — fluorine is used to treat the human being. Therefore fluorine is medica- 
tion. Worse than that, it is mass medication, though admittedly it is only 
claimed to be l)eneficial to a small group of youngsters. Why poison the entire 
population when those who wish fluorine for dental purposes can use it in pill 
form for their water. Actually the painting of the teeth by your dentist with 
a compound of fluorine will do more good tliau the injection of fluorine into the 
body and this is not mass medication. It is not criminal and is not illegal. 

Re Operation Rat Poison, Third Installment. 

To the Members of the General Court: 

This the third installment gives the bold truth about one of the most colossal 
sales frauds in history. 

Read how, in a Government office of that department supposed to be dedicated 
to the protection of the health of the American people, a massive sales meeting 
was held to put over Operation, Rat Poison. The fuller minutes of this meeting, 
from which we quote a few excerpts gave not one single shred of scientific proof 
that adding fluorine is beneficial but it does emphatically state that the pro- 
fluoridators get the job done witliout public discussion ; without letting it come 
to i)ublic vote and with giving the public one side only. 

Read how they secretly admit they don't know the answers, but it enough of 
the right statements are made to enough of the right susceptible people by a Gov- 
ernment authority anything can be put over. 

Read how they violated the fundamental precepts of our Founding Fathers to 
the effect that education of the masses to their prolilems is the basis of all sound 
democratic government. 

Read how they taught their fieldworkers : (1) not let the public know the 
truth; (2) avoid letting the people know that sodium fluoride is a poison; 
(•3) that they don't know the answer to the toxicity questions: (4) that they 
should put it over on the dentists, and the PTA organizations before they can 
learn the real truth or organize resistance. 

If ever in this country's history we need men of the caliber of John and Samuel 
Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and Abe Lincoln, it is now. As never 
before, we need statesmen who will stand for principles rather than politicians 
who think only of expediency. Massachusetts furnished the statesmen who 
sparked the movement that created our country. Will she again furnish the 
men who will act to show other States that statesman.ship is not dead? 

Massachusetts Women's Political Club, 
Florence Birmingham, President. 

Part III. Fluoridation a Hoax or Operation Rat Poison 
secrecy and half truths as propaganda 

Lincoln said, "Give the people the truth and they will save the Nation." 
This principle is the foundation of American democracy and the strength of 
our Nation but the extreme opposite was adopted by the Federal Security Agency 
under Oscar Ewing and unfortunately is continuing today. Mr. Swing's propa- 
ganda expert was Edward L. Bernays. We quote from Dr. Paul Manning's arti- 


cle : The Federal Engineering of Consent. Nephew of Sigmund Fi-evid. Vienna- 
born Mr. Bernays is well documented in the Faxon book published in 1951 (Rum- 
ford Press, Concord, N. H. ) ; Public Relations, Edward L. Beruays and the 
American Scene : 

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opin- 
ions of the masses must be done by experts, the public relations counsels (Ber- 
nays invented the term) ; they are the invisible rulers who control the destinies 
of millions. 

"* * * file most direct way to reach the mind of the herd is through its leaders. 
For, if the group leaders accept our ideas, the group they dominate will respond. 

"In a talk to public-health-education leaders by Bernays, thought-control 
methods were introduced. 'A united leadershiji must eliminate lags by the engi- 
neering of consent. You, as a leader must get people to follow you. You must 
gain their consent to your health programs by gaining their support through 
many types of persuasion. But all this must be planned ; indoctrination must be 
subtle. It should be worked into the everyday life of the people — 24 hours a day 
in hundreds of ways. Public-health officers cannot afford the professional 
modesty professed by physicians.' 

"A redefinition of ethics is necessary. * * * The subject matter of the propa- 
ganda need not necessarily be true, says Bernays." 


The layman, the citizen, the PTA member, the doctor, the dentist, the city 
fathers of our towns, and members of the State legislature should reread the 
above for those are the words of a man who has been directing the fluoridation 
program. His words are diametrically opposed to that of Jefferson and Lincoln 
and of everything that maintains democracy. It is this philosophy that is today 
pouring rat poison into the bodies of 15 million American citizens. 

Our public-spirited patriotic legislators should stop this "hoax" by specific 
legal action designating the word "fluorides." As long as the people are apathetic, 
what can you expect from a democracy but totalitarianism? 

To demonstrate still further the lack of scientific knowledge, the use of high- 
pressure sales methods, and the desires to keep the public in the dark with regard 
to fluoridation, we quote excerpts from the fourth annual conference, State 
Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, held 
June 6 to 8, 1951, in the Federal Security Building, Washington, D. C. Chairman : 
Dr. John W. Knutson, Chief, Division of Dental Public Health Relations and co- 
chairman Dr. John T. Fulton, Dental Service Adviser, United States Children's 

For the sake of brevity we quote only a sentence here and there : 

Dr. Knutson : "As you all know, the Public Health Service did not get around 
to approving water fluoridation until 5 years later (1950). You all know that 
Dr. Frank Bull has appeared before us, and also dental groups during the past 
5 years, asking the simple question, 'What are we waiting for? Why don't we 
go ahead and fluoridate water supplies?' " 

Dr. Bull, who was salesman deluxe for rat poison in Wisconsin, "What are 
some of the objections?" 

"The first: Isn't fluoride the thing that caused mottled enamel? N^ow we tell 
them this, that at one part per million dental fluorosis bring about the most beau- 
tiful teeth that anyone ever had. And we show them pictures of such teeth. We 
don't try to say that there is no such thing as fluorosis even at 1.2 per '.million 
which we are recommending, but you have got to have an answer. iMaybe you 
have a better one." 

Author's comment : The reader should please note that in this liigh-pressure 
sales meeting the recognized sales head, Dr. Bull, never gave his underlings the 
ans^^■er to any of the public's questions nor any scientific evidence to substantiate 
the benefits of fiuoridation. 

Dr. Bull : "And, incidentally, we never use the term 'artificial fluoridation.' 
There is something about that term that means a phony. We call it 'controlled 
fluoridation.' Ineidently, we never had any 'experiments' in Wisconsin. To 
take a city of 100,000 and say, 'We are going to experiment on you, and if you 
survive we will learn something from it,' that is kind of rough treatment on the 
public. In Wisconsin we set up demonstrations — they weren't experiments." 

Dr. Bull : "Now, in regard to toxicity, I notice that Dr. Bane used the term 
'adding sodium fluoride.' We never do that. That is rat poison. You add 


fluorides. Never miiul that sodium-fluoride busiuess. All of these things give 
the opposition something to pick at and they have got enough to pick out without 
giving them more. But this toxicity question is a dilheult one. I can't give you 
the answ er on it. I can prove to you that we do not know the answer to that 
one, because we had a city of 18,000 people which was fluoridating its water for 
6 to S months. Then a campaign was started by an organized opposition on the 
ground of toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out fluorine." 

Dr. Bull : "I don't believe you can win approval of any public health program 
where there is organized opposition. I mean, clever, well-thought-up opposition. 
So, when you get the answer on the question of toxicity please write me at once, 
because I would like to know." 

Dr. Bull again : "One thing that is a little hard to handle is the charge that 
flouridation is not needed. They talk of other methods and when they get 
through adding up all the percentages of decay that we can reduce by such 
methods, we end up in a minus. When they take us at our word, they make awful 
liars out of us — the research workers." 

Author's comment : Thus we see that the arch salesman who put over fluorida- 
tion in most of Wisconsin had no facts or figiu-es. He did not know any answers, 
but did know how to put over high-pressure salesmanship providing the public 
was kept in the dark. Poor Abe Lincoln must have groaned in his grave when 
this was said in a Government propaganda meeting in a Government oflice. 

Dr. Bull again : "People are going to say, 'Isn't it a fact that you don't know 
all about fluoridation? Do you know how this thing works"/' We say, we don't 
know all about anything." 

Dr. Bull : "You have got to get a policy that says, 'do if * * * What kind of 
public health program is it if you say to the community, 'If you want to do it'." 
Dr. Bull : "When we are having the press in. and the public in. don't have any- 
body on the program who is going to go ahead and oppose us because he wants 
to study it some more." 

Dr. Bull : "Now, where dentists do not seem interested, do not let them stymie 
you — what we do on occasion like this is to arrange for the PTA or some group 
to ask for some of us to come in and talk about fluoridation. In this way you get 
in without forcing yourself, and you can build a Are under the dentist. This is 
promotional work." 

Dr. Bull : "You have got to knock their objections down. The question of 
toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it all together, just pass it over." 

Dr. Bull : "Let me tell you that the PTA is a honey when it comes to fluorida- 
tion. Give them all you've got." 

Dr. Bull : "If you can, I say if you can, because 5 times we have not been able 
to do it, keep fluoridation from going to a referendum — at the same time, do not 
tell the people that you are just starting on the fluoridation program in order to 
promote something else because you are never going to promote anything that 
comes up to fluoridation in an urban community." 

Dr. Glover Jones, Texas, interrupts Dr. Bull with : "We have some 30 or 40 
cities discussing fluoridation. Various ones had procured equipment and were 
thinking and talking about it. The University of Texas had a research pro- 
gram on some white mice. There was a rumor that fluoridation of water sup- 
plies caused cancer ; that has knocked the pins from under us." 

Dr. Bull : "I wish I knew the answer. I do not know why they didn't include 
a letter from two-thirds of the deans of dental schools of the University saying 
that fluoridation is a rat poison and should not be used. Y"ou know how we 
handle it on this 'rat poison' business. We said it was unfortunate it didn't 
kill every rat. What do we care what hapisens to rats? You know these re- 
search people, they can't get over the feeling that you have to have test tubes 
before you start applying it to human beings." 

Dr. Bull : "These fellows (research people) can just take the statements of the 
ADA, or the USDHS, or the deans of dental schools on research workers and they 
can prove to you that we are absolutely crazy for thinking about fluoridation." 
Comment : Thus it can be seen that there is nothing scientific, nothing sincere, 
no desire to tell the public the truth, no desire to let the public in on it, and every 
effort is made in a high-pressure sales campaign to prevent the people from 
knowing anything except their one-sided propaganda. 

As against all this high pressure, unscientific sales promotional campaign put 
on by the Government agency, let us contrast the statement made by Repre- 
sentative James J. Delaney, who with 6 other Congressmen including 2 medical 
men, heard the scientists from both sides during congressional hearings March 
and February 1952. This committee reports : 


"It is essential, therefore, tliat all the facts concerning fluoridation be dissemi- 
nated, and an oitportunity be given to the people of each community to decide for 
themselves whether they desire to assume at this time, the calculated risk in- 
herent in the program. The committee believes that if communities are to make 
a mistake in reaching a decision on whether to fluoridate their public drinking 
water, it is preferable to err on the side of caution." 

You have already been told of Congressman A. L. Miller's testimony before 
Congress to the effect that he too was duped and overawed by the force of au- 
thorities arrayed in favor of fluoridation. He came out for fluoridation at first 
until he started to investigate. Congressman Miller was big enough to admit he 
had been duped. Most certainly, every high pressure sales promotion scheme has 
been used in Massachusetts by the promoters of Massachusetts medication and 
human experimentation. The paramount question now is : Have we today 
enough statesmen of integrity with a sincere devotion to their public trust to 
withstand this autocratic and undemocratic Government agency? Have we 
enough men who can and will think for them.selves instead of listening to those 
in authority simply because they are in high Government places? Have we on 
Boston's Capitol Hill today Tories who will kowtov/ svibserviently to Government 
agencies whether right or wrong or have we patriots as of old who place principle 
and the dignity of man above expediency ; and if necessary, above constituted 
legal authority? 


The Chairman. Our r.ext witness will be James Watt, manager of 
the Washington office of the Christian Science committee on publica- 

You may proceed, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. Watt. INIy name is James Watt. I am manager of the Wash- 
ington office of the Christian Science committee on publication — part 
of the administrative offices of the Christian Science denomination. 

I am appearing before this committee today as the official repre- 
sentative of the Christian Science denomination, consisting of the First 
Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., and its more than 3,000 
branch churches. Also, I speak as an individual citizen and as a mem- 
ber of the Christian Science Church. 

The Christian Science Church and Christian Scientists. individually 
protest the compulsory medication, involved in the treatment of public 
water supplies with fluorides. We welcome the opportunity to appear 
in support of H. R. 2341, and it is our hope that the bill will be favor- 
ably considered by the Congress. 

In an opinion rendered recently in a Louisiana trial court in the case 
of Mark E. Chapman et al v. City of ^hreveport^ which case is now on 
appeal, we find this statement concerning fluoridation : 

* * * medication, in lay understanding, in condes prophylaxis or preventive 
measures, when applied to the individual. * * * Considering the end results that 
are sought, we cannot escape the conclusion that it is a form of medication, or 
at least a scientific treatment or a sort of hydrotherapy, by way of ingesting 
these mineralized waters, of and for the children of the community under 12 
years of age. 

And further on in his opinion, the trial judge said: 

No person or segment of the population having that condition (dental caries or 
tooth decay) can on that account have any adverse effect on the health, dental 
or otherwise, of the general public or of any segment thereof. We repeat, in 
our opinion this is not a matter of the public health. It is strictly within the 
realm of individual and personal dental health and hygiene, within which each 
person should be free to choose his course for himself and those for whom he is 
responsible in tbe family relation. To this field, the just powers of the Govern- 
ment do not extend. 


This opinion makes it clear to us that the fluoridation program, as 
related to public water supplies, is in effect a step toward state medi- 
cine. We are as opposed to state medicine as we would be opposed to 
a state church, and for the same reason. 

The. constitutional right of the free exercise of religion was made 
the very first pronouncement in the Bill of Rights by the Congress of 
the United States. The first article of this famous instrument reads 
in part : 

Congress shall make uo law respet-tiii.Li- an fstalilishnient of religion, or pro- 
hibiting the free exercise thereof * * * 

For Christian Scientists, at least, this freedom to practice their 
religion is being challenged and overrun by the tendency to extend to 
medical theories and practices priority over rights of religion. These 
practices threaten to undermine one of our beloved country's oldest 
and most sacred covenants. 

The purposes behind compulsory medication of citizens may appear 
worthy. It masquerades as a necessity and a benefit, but actually 
represents a form of benevolent despotism which we had hoped for 
forefathers swept away a century and a half ago. Therefore, to force 
this method of dental hygiene u]:)on Christian Scientists constitutes a 
violation of fundamental religious rights. 

The Christian Scientists do not oppose any voluntary system of 
medicine or surgery or health regimen. They do not desire to impose 
their way of thought or healing upon anybody; but they do believe in 
voluntary acceptance or rejection of political, religious, or medical 
beliefs. It should be stated also that Christian Scientists enter no 
objection against measures of sanitation and public cleanliness. 
Christian Scientists simply ask that they be permitted to enjoy the 
same freedom which, as American citizens supporting the American 
way of life, they are trying to sustain for others. 

Healing the sick through prayer as Jesus did, and directed His fol- 
lowers to do, is a fundamental practice of this Christianly scientific 
religion. Christian Scientists know that the right of religious free- 
dom is a constitutional right — a right which the majority of people 
wish to see preserved. They also know that although their method 
of treating the sick by prayer runs contrary to the prevailing sys- 
tems of today, it is an integral part of their religion, and, therefore, 
a constitutional right. For them it is the most effective known method 
for the prevention and treatment of disease, as well as an inseparable 
aspect of their worship. 

^ They note with alarm the spread of compulsory medical examina- 
tion and treatment by institutional and government fiat. There is a 
tendency to force healing effort into a single mold, rather than to 
rally all the health potentialities of our country and to encourage 
them to the highest voluntary effort. 

We clo not believe that it is the sense and desire of the electorate, 
the legislatures, or the courts of our land to sacrifice religious liberty 
in favor of any system of health improvement or control. 

In presenting this argument for exemption from compulsory medi- 
cal treatment (fluoridation being treatment before the fact — the dis- 
ease) Christian Scientists are not challenging the police power of 
the state; they are challenging the administration of that power 

48S91— 54 5 


insofar as it tramples on religious rights. They are challenging it on 
moral grounds — on the moral grounds that forcing medical treat- 
ment on persons when it is contrary to their deepest religious con- 
victions and practices is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the 
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

An editorial entitled "Unconscious Tyranny" which appeared in 
the Christian Science Monitor of June 11, 1951, states the case suc- 
cinctly and reads as follows : 

In considering proposals that public water supplies be treated with fluorides 
to reduce decay of children's teeth, all that some authorities would require is 
that local dental and medical societies and health officials approve. So far as 
we know, only the American Water Works Association has added that there 
must be a "strong public demand" for such treatment. 

This tendency to pass over the people and let the experts decide is all too 
frequent these days in matters pertaining to health. It is an attitude of "the 
government knows best" that, while well iutentioned, dilutes self-reliant self- 
government. Moreover, paternalism involves an unconscious tyranny over indi- 

Dental health is a private affair, and there are many who prefer to keep the 
freedom to decide for themselves how to deal with it. This they cannot do if 
public water is medicated as recommended, for then they must either submit 
to the fluoride treatment or go thirsty. 

Chlorination and fluoridation are not in the same category. The former is 
designed to prevent pollution of public water. The latter is an imposition of 
treatment that does not relieve a public danger and does deprive individuals 
of the choice of rejecting it in favor of another form of treatment. Such aa 
intrusion on individual freedom is not to be entered into lightly. In effect, this 
is state medicine with the government forcing its concept of dental hygiene 
upon everyone in the community. Certainly, no group of experts, however well 
qualified they may be technically, is really competent to decide such an issue, 
especially when, as in the case with fluoridation, they cannot even agree among 
themselves that what is recommended is safe or effective. 

A fundamental freedom is involved here. The right of individuals who depend 
on prayer rather than drugs to maintain health is infringed by blanket medica- 
tion. This basic religious freedom is precious and cannot be conveniently 
ignored every time a new cure-all is suggested. Certainly it is within the scope 
of technical possibility as well as conscience to provide medication for those 
who want it without forcing it upon everyone. Certainly su,ch a course is more 
in accord with democratic ideas and constitutional practices. 

Let it be known that Christian Scientists are vitally concerned with 
health and with the public interest. No bona fide Christian Scientist 
endangers a community by his actions or his religious beliefs. Chris- 
tian Scientists are good citizens; they observe law and order; they 
report communicable diseases promptly and strictly observe quaran- 
tine regulations. They contribute much to the health and well-being 
of their communities. 

Our particular desire in this instance is to point out that a funda- 
mental freedom is endangered here under the guise of benevolent 
public welfare. 

We urge that individual freedom be preserved and recommend the 
passage of H. E.. 2341. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Any questions? 

Mr. Heselton. Mr. Watt, do you have the citation to the case you 
refer to ? 

Mr. Watt. Yes ; it is in the statement. 

Mr. Heselton. Do you have the volume and page number? 

Mr. Watt. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Heselton. Is that a district court ? 


Mr. Watt. It is a trial court at Shreveport, La. 

Mr. Heselton. A State court ? 

Mr. Watt. I do not know which court. 

Mr. Heselton. In your presentation you phiced emphasis upon the 
first article of the Constitution and referred to the Bill of Rights. I 
wondered if, in connection with any fluoridation program that has 
been undertaken, has there been a challenge as to it being unconsti- 
tutional because of that first article ? 

Mr. Watt. When the question first came up here in Washington, I 
came to the Appropriations Committee, both the House and the Sen- 
ate, and pointed that out, and you will find a short statement from 
me on the record. I think it was about the only one that did come at 
that time. I happened to have talked with Senator Hill about it at 
various times. At various places it has come up and Christian Scien- 
tists have joined with others in presenting this point of view. We 
make only one point on it. 

Mr. Heselton. What I had in mind was this : Has any effort been 
made to establish the constitutionality in the court? 

Mr. Watt. I do not know. 

Mr. Heselton. You do not Imow what the facts are as to who 
Mr. Mark E. Chapman is or the ground of the alleged violation ? 

Mr. Watt. I do not know, and the reason I used his statement was 
to have the opinion of a judge, and it was a trial, and evidence was 
submitted, and to have the opinion of the — that it was a form of medi- 
cation, because that was one of the controversial points. Some people 
say that it is not medication and some say it is. 

Mr. Heselton. I understand that. 

Mr. Watt. That was my only reason for using the quotation. 

Mr. Heselton. I understand that it has been some 20 years, during 
which the program has been instituted in various States, communities, 
and counties, and I was wondering if the Christian Scientists had at- 
tempted to establish the unconstitutionality in the courts on the ground 
that it was a violation of the first article of the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Watt. The Christian Science Church as such, certainly has not. 
If there has been anything like that, it would have been by an indi- 
vidual, who might have been a Christian Scientists, but I do not know. 

Mr. Heselton. That is all. 

Mr. Watt. Someone has handed me the opinion here. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to make it a part of your remarks ? 

Mr. Watt. I could give it to Mr. Heselton. 

Mr. Heselton. I should like to see it. 

The Chairman. Do you care to interrogate the witness further, 
Mr. Heselton ? 

Mr. Heselton. I think not, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Priest. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Heselton. Yes. 

Mr. Priest. Do you know whether this relates to the question be- 
fore us ? 

Mr. Heselton. I will be very glad to indicate that. 

It is the opinion of the presiding judge of the First District Court 
of Caddo Parish, La., and it is an action by Mark E. Chapman and 
others against the city of Shreveport and they sought a preliminary 
writ of injunction to prevent the fluoridation of the publically owned 


and o})erated city waterworks, and I take it from what Mr. Watt has 
said that the injunction was issued. And judgment was entered ac- 

(The opinion above referred to has been placed in the committee 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? If not, we 
thank you, Mr. Watt, for your appearance and your statement. 

Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I notice from the list of witnesses that has been 
handed to me that some have come a great distance: 1 from Toledo, 
1 from Springfield, Mass., and 1 from San Francisco, 1 from Worces- 
ter, another from Hartford and 1 from Seattle, Wash., and some from 

I would like to give recognition to those who have come great dis- 
tances first. 

The next one on my list is Dr. Frederick B. Exner, fellow of the 
American College of Radiology. 

Mr. Pelly. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Exner is a constituent of mine and 
comes very highly recommended by a great many well known people 
in my Congressional District. I noticed this morning that one of the 
witnesses referred to the University of Washington and I believe Dr. 
Exner has had some connection with the University of Washington, 
and as my colleagues will recognize, it is always a pleasure when we 
have a witness from our own district. 

I thought perhaps you might permit me at this time just to say a 
few words in welcoming Dr. Exner as a witness before he begins his 

Dr. Exner. Thank you, Mr. Pelly and Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I realize, Mr. Pelly, that you would have a great 
deal of pleasure in having Dr. Exner here as a witness today, espe- 
cially in view of the fact that he has a background that entitles yon 
to be proud of his achievements. We certainly are happy to have 
you here. Dr. Exner, from the district that is so ably re]n-esented by 
Mr. Pelly, and you will carry back to Seattle, if you will, that we have 
no more faithful or able member of this committee than Mr. Pelly 
who comes from the city of Seattle. 

Dr. Exner. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very happy to do so and I 
wish to state that I am personally very proud of Mr. Felly's work. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. Dr. Exner. 


Dr. Exner. I have attempted to Ijrief my testimony to save the 
committee's time. I hoi)e I have not mangled it in the ])rocess but 
you will find all of it in the statement. 

The Chairman. I notice, in your statement, you say that you have 
briefed it. 

Dr. Exner. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that it has taken 40 pages to brief it ? 

Dr. Exner. No, sir. I mean, I am about to brief it now; I am 
about to brief the 40 pages, I hope. 


The Chairman, Yon may ])roceecl. 

Dr. ExNER. I am Frederick B. Exner, doctor of medicine, fellow 
of tlie American College of Radiology. 1 am something of a "jack- 
of-all-trades." My father was professor of chemistry at Carleton 
College, Northfield, Minn., for many years, and I practically grew np 
in the chemistry laboratory. I was graduated from Carleton College, 
bachelor of arts, 1921, with two majors, mathematics and chemistry. 
I took postgraduate work there in organic chemistry in the sunmier 
of 1923. I taught chemistry and physics at Faribault, Minn., from 
1921 to 1923. 

I taught physics and chemistry for 2 years in high school and 
while in medical school, I took an extra summer quarter, and took 
elective work in pathology and physical chemistry; and also did some 
s])ecia] work on statistical studies of growth with Richard Scammon, 
one of the ])ioneers in "biometrics.'' 

From 1930 to 1933, 1 took j)ostgraduate work combined with teach- 
ing in radiology and pathology, at the University of Minnesota. 
Since that time I have engaged in the private practice of radiology, 
including dental X-ray, mostly in Seattle. 

While at Mimiesota. 1 did pioneer work on mass-X-ray case finding 
of tuberculosis. My latest paper on the subject was published in 
July 1952. I was twice president of the local Antituberculosis 
League (Christmas seals), was for more than 10 years a consultant 
to the State department of health, and have been on the medical ad- 
visory connnittee of the State department of vocational rehabilita- 
tion. I include these facts because it has been maliciously stated that 
I am opposed to everything aimed toward the public good. 

I am a physician in good standing. 

I am a member of the house of delegates of Washington State 
Medical Association and have been 4 times president of the State 
Radiological Society, 6 times secretary of the Association of Amer- 
ican Physicians and Surgeons, am counselor for Washington for the 
American College of Radiology, and a member of its commission 
on legislation and public policy: I am a member of the faculty of 
our medical school, medical ethics and economics. 

I speak here strictly as an individual, expressing my own opinions. 
The medical school, particularly, wants it expressly understood that 
it has no official opinions on the subject of fluoridation. 

The following testimony is based on more than 2 years of intensive 

The Chairman. With the reputation you have. Dr. Exner, and 
the background of your study and experience, I can very readily 
understand why Mr. Pelly took great pride in presenting you here 
today, and took occasion to refer to the fact that you were one of 
the outstanding physicians. 

Dr. Exner. Thank you. 

There is nothing controversial about facts. Controversies arise 
over matters of opinion. I hope, therefore, to keep my testimony as 
factual as possible. 

Facts are stubborn things. AVhen you defy them you get in trou- 
ble. The dark ages were dark because instead of seeking facts, peo- 
ple permitted themselves to be bound by official opinions, mostly 
handed down from Aristotle. We can consider that science was 


born when Galileo dropped two balls from the Tower of Pisa, and 
established that facts take precedence over authority. We can fore- 
see the death of science in Russia, where it must conform to the party 
line, and where they already have an official theory of heredity. 

Most of us are not aware of a similar danger here. Yet in this 
matter of fluoridation we come dangerously close to "official science." 
We don't ask: "Is this thing true?" "Does it make sense?" "Does 
it conform to common knowledge?" Instead, we ask ""VVliat does 
Dean say?" "What does Arnold say?" "What does McClure say?" 
Or "What does the A. D. A. or the A. M. A., the A. W. W. A., the 
National Research Council, or the Public Health Service say?" And 
we fail to notice that when any of these organizations speaks on the 
subject, it is merely Dean, Arnold, or McClure in a different hat. 

Dean, Arnold and McClure have done much work on fluorides, 
mottled enamel, and tooth-decay; but instead of examining their 
methods, or looking at their data, we merely ask: "What do they 
say?" Let's look at what they say. 

F. J. McClure of the Public Health Service was asked by the coun- 
cil on foods and nutrition of the A. M. A. to write the section of fluo- 
rine for the second edition of its Handbook of Nutrition (Lewis, Lon- 
don, 1951). His article was also published without references in the 
A. M. A. March 12, 1949 (pp. 711-713). The later actions of the 
A. M. A. were largely influenced by what it says, and even more by 
what it fails to say. 

On page 148 of the Handbook, and page 714, Journal of American 
Medical Association, McClure makes this statement: "Fluorine in- 
gestion from domestic waters, even in areas of greatest fluorine con- 
centration, would rarely exceed 8 to 10 milograms daily." 

Disregarding Bauxite, Ark., where Churchill of Aluminum Re- 
search Laboratories reported 13.7 parts per million of fluoride in 
water no longer used, we may assume that McClure meant water with 
8 to 10 parts per million. 

Even so, we find that McClure, Mitchell and others experimented 
on conscientious objectors during the war (Journal of Industrial 
Hygiene and Toxicology, June 1945, pp. 159-170). We find (p. 163) 
when they were kept in a hot, humid room, with only casual activity, 
and permitted to drink Galesburg water, with 1.9 parts per million 
of fluoride, they got, on the average, 9.7 and up to 12.2 milligrams 
fluoride per day. On the basis of 10 parts per million this corre- 
sponds to 51 milligrams per day, a far cry from the 10 milligrams in 
the handbook. 

Even under comfortable conditions the same men averaged 5.4 milli- 
grams per day, corresponding to 28 milligrams at 10 parts per million. 

Given Urbana water, with 0.3 part per million of fluoride, the 
averages (p. 164) were 1.8 milligrams and 0.6 milligram correspond- 
ing to 60 milligrams and 20 milligrams respectively at 10 parts per 
million. It seems that McClure was singularly unimpressed with his 
own findings when he wrote the material on wliich we all rely for ac- 
curate information. 

Meanwhile the same Handbook states (p. 475) that — 

the volume of sweat may reach 2.5 liters (each about a quart) an hour in men 
at hard work at a high environmental temperature. 


This would, if my figures are correct, amount to an extra 16 or more 
liters per 8-hour day of needed fluid. Even at the recommended 1.0 
parts per million this would amount to a total of about 6.5 milligrams 
per day, and provide a significant additional hazard to men working 
where they are exposed to fluoride. 

Let's look again. In 1944, at Cleveland, McClure told the xVmerican 
Association for the Advancement of Science that — 

children up to age 12 years, also exposed to drinking water containing 1.0 parts 
per million fluorine, will ingest via food and drinking water about 0.8 to 1.1 
milligrams fluorine daily, equal to about 0.05 milligram fluorine per kilogram 

If true, and even assuming that they all get 0.3 milligram or less in 
their food, then every child up to 12 years old must drink 1% pints 
of water per day and weigh 44 pounds. I don't believe it. Yet state- 
ments based on these figures of McClure's are quoted all over the place 
as "scientifically proved fact." 

Let's look again. In the same handbook (p. 145) , McClure says : 

In an attempt to assess the hazard of cumulative fluorosis from fluoride waters, 
an extensive survey of tlie fluorine concentration of urine specimens of high 
school boys and of young selectees * * * was made by McClure and Kinser. 

The reference is to Public Health Report 59 : 1575, 1944. 

This tells how pooled specimens from 15 to 20 or less persons each 
were analyzed and found, within a wide range, to have about the same 
concentration of fluoride as the local water. From this he concludes 
(Handbook p. 146) that- 
upward of 90 percent of water-borne fluorine in concentrations of 0.5 to 4.5 
parts per million is eliminated in the daily urine of teen-age boys and young men. 

The conclusion of course is a gross non sequitur and the whole 
thing a tissue of fallacies. One of the more obvious is that he totally 
disregards water loss tlirough the skin and from the lungs. You can 
see the latter on a cold day. 

In an article by Machle, Scott, and Largent which McClure likes to 
quote (Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 24: 199, Sep- 
tember 1942), there is an account of 9 months water-balance study 
on one individual. It showed that the daily urine outj)ut was just half 
the daily fluid consumption, and about a third of the daily water 
from all sources. That excludes water from foods as well as other 
sources. xYctually, then if jNIcClure proved anything he proved that 
less than half the daily fluorine intake is put out in the urine. Never- 
theless his false conclusion is accepted as "scientific fact" and used 
as a basis' for further conclusions. 

Now, with regard to Dr. Arnold, we will have more to say about 
fluoride storage, but first let's look at what Dean and Arnold say, 
Arnold confines himself largely to quoting the work of others. How- 
ever, in the Journal of American Dental Association, January 1948, 
page 30, he quotes an article of which he is coauthor. He says : 

In Aurora, 111. * * * only about 0.4 percent of the anterior teeth showed even 
so much as the mildest form of fluorosis. 

There is some doubt as to what he meant by "anterior teeth." If he 
means the 8 incisors, the 633 children had 5,064 anterior teeth. If he 
meant the upper central incisors, which are the ones most commonly 
afl'ected, they had 1.266. Four-tenths percent of the first figure is 20 


teeth. Four-teiitlis percent of the secoiicl fiaiue is 5 teeth. The orig- 
inal article (Public Health Report, Aprit 11, 1941, p. 790), how- 
ever, tells us that 57 incisor teeth were affected. This may have been 
an honest error, but it appeared in the most widely read, by far, 
dental journal. It has never been corrected, and influenced the think- 
ing of many dentists. Also, it is often quoted. 

Now, with regard to Dr. Dean, what does Dean say? As a matter 
of fact, he has said so much he has been given honors and medals. 
He is quoted all over the world. He quotes himself extensively, in 
1 case from 11 previous articles. But what he quotes is mostly his 
opinions and conclusions. This gives them far more weight than if 
he merely stated them. He rarely quotes his actual findings. 

So that we may know what we are talking about, and with your 
permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to show you at this point 
some pictures taken from Dr. Dean's writings. This was originated, 
as far as I can tell, in a book primarily on dental health. The same 
publication was put out by the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science and was headed by a committee of which Dr. Dean 
was a member. 

This picture on the left is the one under consideration. I hope you 
can see it. It gives a picture of normal teeth, of questionable mottling, 
and of fluorosis, of very mild mottling, and severe. 

Now, in some earlier works. Dr. Dean used artists' drawings instead 
of photographs. In photographs it is so difficult to distinguish be- 
tween the highlights and white flecks that Dean himself wrote on 
some of the pictures that he has published. 

These are photographs and it is very difficult to tell, but on the 
artists' drawings, made under Dean's supervision, you can find that on 
the questionable range, there are a lot of low white spots shown by 
the artists on the front teeth. And if you read the description which 
goes with the pictures, you will find that the teeth are described as 
definitely abnormal. 

With regard to very mild classification, looking here, you do not 
see very much unless you are told what to look at and then you are not 
quite sure what it means. 

You will find in 1934, Dr. Dean published a classification of mottled 
enamel, in which he stated that the characteristic brown stains, the 
Colorado brown stains, the Texas stain, that caused this condition, 
that there is a disfiguring quality, disfiguring even when it is only 
white, but more so when it is brown. 

But in 1934 Dr. Dean said that brown stain does not occur in the 
very mild classification. The article written the following year, he 
had learned better, because at that time he said that it rarely occurred 
and if it does occur, it is — I do not remember the exact wording — but 
it is very limited, almost such as to be impercentible. 

In 1935 the wording was repeated and in 1938, so there is no pos- 
sibility of our getting confused on having found an earlier article 
published in 1935 of a later article published in 1934. However, that 
is a matter that is covered in detail in the written testimony. 

I merely Avanted to show you something of what you are looking 
at on the mild type as it is very definitely shown on this illustration the 
brown stains, that there is a lot of brown stain in the mottled division, 
and that we do not have picked categories where you go through and 


separate the squares from the triangles, but that this is a continuous 
gradation, and somewhere between here and here is a borderline, be- 
tween tlie mihl and the mottled, and that perhaps even if there is 
reason for wanting to find more mild an<l more moderate, you might 
find it — some of it has slipped over this way, or vice versa, because 
those types of things happen in any scientific investigation and lead 
to the general rule that where you have an interest in the investigation 
you are conducting, that the results are sure to be modified by bias, 
even with the most scientific intention. 

Dean has said so nnich it is hard to know where to start. For 
example, in Public Health Reports, April 11, 1941, page 762, he says: 

It is obvious tliat whatever eltect the waters with rehitively liigh fluoride 
content (over 2 parts per million of Fahrenheit) have on dental caries is largely 
of academic interest ; the resultant permanent disfigurement of many of the 
users far outweighs any advantage that might accrue from the standpoint of 
partial control of dental caries. 

But in Pelton and AVisan's Dentistry in Public Health (Saunders, 
Philadelphia, 1049) page 145, Dean says: 

The Question is frequently raised why certain children have no mottled enamel, 
while others in the same family using the same water supply have it. * * * a 
number of factors may be kept in mind : Normal f)iologic variability, natural 
differences in sensitivity (or resistance), amount of water drunk, amount of 
milk consumed, dietary and culinary habits, and doul)tless other unrecognizable 
variables influencing fluoride intake. 

It is common knowledge that children habitally consume widely 
different amounts of fluids. It is also common knowledge that in one 
case a child may be imrsed, and later drink nothing but milk and 
juices, eat canned sou])S, and canned or steamed vegetables; while 
another may be fed milk powder dissolved in water, and later drink 
nothing but water, eat home-made soups and boiled vegetables. It is 
clear that one may easily get 10 times as much fluoride as the other, 
and that any statement that 1 part per million is safe and 2 parts 
excessive; or that one-half ])art is safe and 1 part excessive, is just 
plain silly. The 2 to 1 differences are insignificant alongside the 
individual differences. Yet such is the basic postulate on which the 
case for fluoridation stands or falls. 

In Public Health Reports, December (>, 1935, Dean says : 

For public health purposes we have arbitrarily denied the minimal threshold 
of fluoride concentration in a domestic water supply as the highest concentra- 
tion incapable of producing a definite degree of mottled enamel in as much as 
10 percent of the group examined. 

In a footnote, he explains : 

A community is given a "negative" mottled enamel index when "less than 10 
percent of the children show 'very mild' or more severe types of mottled 

On the basis of his work, the Public Health Service, in 1942, adopted 
1 part per million a.s the maximum permissible amount of fluoride in 
public water supplies. It w^as considered that more than that amount 
caused so much damage that it must be removed, or a different source 
of water found. 

Yet in 1952 he testified under oath (Delaney hearings, pp. 1647- 
1653) that from 1 part per million of fluoride in the water (a) there 
would result no "objectionable" fluorosis from a public health stand- 


point, or in other words, that less than 15 percent of children would 
get "very mild" or more severe degrees of mottled enamel; (h) no 
child would get personally objectionable fluorosis, and that anything 
that attracts attention is objectionable; (c) that there would be no 
brown stain or dull white opacity; {d) that any teeth classified as 
"mild" (as distinguished from "very mild") would invariably be sec- 
ond bicuspids or molars (back teeth which are not seen) ; and (e) that 
in teeth showing "questionable" mottling the changes are "so very 
slight you don't even know what it is." 

These things simply are not true. I have personally seen teeth that 
developed in Denver, using water with one part per million of fluoride, 
that were stained. The front teeth were mottled with brown, and it 
was obvious at first glance from across the room. 

In Tristan da Cunha, where the water contains 0.2 part per mil- 
lion of fluoride, R. Soggnaes (Journal of Dental Research, August 
1941, pp. 303-322) founcl that 30 percent of persons between 6 and 19 
had mottled teeth ; that 60 percent of the upper central incisors were 
affected; that they showed "white spots in the enamel" described as 
opaque areas of a whitish color ; that "the lesions were obvious enough 
to be revealed at the first smile of many of the younger inhabitants"; 
that even deciduous teeth were affected; and that the diagnosis was 
confirmed by chemical analysis of the teeth. 

A study by the Public Health Service in 1951 (Public Health Serv- 
ice Reports, 68, p. 504, No. 5, May 1953) , found 18 percent of children 
affected where there was only 0.8 part per million fluoride. What is 
more, 2 percent were classified as "moderate," and 1 percent as "severe." 
(On the basis of this study, it has been recommended that the fluorida- 
tion level in hot, dry regions be 0.6 instead of 1 part per million. It 
is also suggested that the amount of fluorosis be usecl as a biological 
test of how much water children consume. (What it would actually 
indicate, if anj^thing, would be the water consumption of 6 to 8 years 

Also, in 1951, Maier of the Public Health Service (Proceedings of 
the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the 
Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, p. 65), said that 
"the criterion we have been using is that if there is some 10 to 20 
percent fluorosis in the community, that would not be objectionable, 
because in those places the degree of intensity is not greater than the 
accepted designation of 'mild'." 

Dean stated that his testimony was based on the study of the "21 
cities." The listed authors are Dean, Arnold, Jay, and Elvove. The 
actual examinations were done by Johnston and Short, except at Wau- 
kegan and again at MaywoocT where their diagnostic criteria were 
"calibrated for a few weeks" by Arnold. The work extended from 
September 1939 through October 1940, and was reported in Public 
Health Reports, April 11, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as study II). 
In each study, the cities were given a mottled enamel index "in ac- 
cordance with a previously described method," and the reference is 
to chapter XII, by Dean, in Gordon's Dental Science and Dental Art 
(Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1938, and hereinafter referred to as 
Dean, 1938). 

To my knowledge. Dean has published five descriptions of mottled 
enamel classifications, as follows: 


1. Journal of the American Dental Association, August 1934, pages 
1421-1426 (hereinafter referred to as Dean, 1934) . 

2. Public Health Reports, March 29, 1935, pages 425-427 (referred 
to as Dean, 1935). 

3. The one in Gordon, cited above as Dean, 1938. 

4. One in Florine and Dental Health (AAAS, Washington, 1942) 
(referred to as Dean, 1942) . 

5. One in the report of the bureau of public relations of the ADA 
written by Dean and Arnold (Journal of the American Dental 
Association, August 1943, pp. 1278-1283), and referred to as Dean, 

He has also presented illustrations of the classification in : 

6. Chapter VII, of Pelton and Wisan, Dentistry in Public Health 
(Saunders, Philadelphia, 1939) (referred to as Dean, 1949) ; and 

7. In the hearings of the Delaney committee, 1952. 

Dean 1934, 1935, and 1938 are substantially identical with one im- 
portant difTerence. In 1934, Dean said : "No brown stain is present" 
in the "very mild" classification. By 1935, he had learned better, and 

Brown stain is rarely observed in the mottled enamel of this classification, 
and, if present at all, is so faint as to be almost indistinct. 

This wording is repeated .in Dean 1938. 

In this connection we should note two things : 

(a) All these studies were made on children, and Dean knew 
that brown stain if present would darken with age, and if absent 
might appear later. In the Journal of the American Medical Asso- 
ciation, October 17, 1936, page 1269, he said : 

Teeth affected with mottled enamel * * * erupt showing a dull chalky white 
appearance which in many instances later take on a characteristic brown stain, 
the frequency of the brown stain increasing with age. 

This is confirmed by his own studies, by other studies by the PHS, and 
by the work of Massler and Schour (Journal of American Dental 
Association, February 1952, pp. 156-165) who found that the ap- 
parent damage increased right up to age 60. As a result, teeth clas- 
sified as normal at age 14 may later be "questionable," and many of 
the "questionable" are proved to have been "very mild" or "mild." 

(h) Dean also knew that the amount of brown stain, even of badly 
mottled teeth, varies widely in different communities, and says: 

Many cases of white opaque mottled enamel, without brown stain, ai*e classi- 
fied as moderate and listed in that category." 

(Dean 1934, 1935, and 1938.) 

The illustrations in Dean 1934 and 1935 are identical and are artist's 
drawings. They show extensive changes on the front teeth in the 
"questionable category". The later pictures are photographs, and in 
general it is impossible to distinguish white flecks from high-lights. 
However, in 1934, he says they may show — 

occasional white spots, 1 to 2 millimeters in diameter — 

and in 1935 and 1938 he says : 

In addition, the summit of the hiciTspids often shows an unusual white opacity 
2 or 3 millimeters in extent. 


In 1934, 1935, and 1938, h<j says these teeth are "definitely not normal" 
but indicates that there may be doubt as to the cause. In 1934 he says : 

No attempt is made to diagnose these small white spots or minute white 
fleckings as the earliest signs of mottling by examination of the person per se. 
Recourse is always made to group study. 

This is what he meant in the Delaney hearings, top of page 1649, when 
he said : 

You don't know what it is. 

And as to balancing the light 3 or 4 ways with a mirror, in Public 
Health Keports, September 10, 1937, page 1252, he says : 

At Clovis, tlie diagnosis of the degree of mottled enamel severity was based 
on a careful visual examination without the aid of mouth mirrors. * * * The 
signs of chronic endemic dental fluorosis are so objective that little variation in 
incidence is noted using eitlier one or the other of these methods. 

So much for the category of '"questionable". "Very mild" is the 
next category and, as we have seen, sometimes shows brown stain. In 
Dean 1934, 1935, and 1938, we are told that it is— 

principally observed on the labial and buccal (i. e. toward the lip or cheek) 
surfaces ; that it involves up to 25 percent of the affected teeth. 

And in all three descriptions of "mild" fluorosis we are told : 

The white opaque areas * * * involve at least half the tooth surface — 


light brown stains are sometimes apparent, generally on the upper incisors. 

In Dean 1942, he describes his new "weighted average" method for 
calculating a "community index of fluorisis" and gives, on page 26, a 
greatly abridged description of the categories. It omits all mention 
of brown stain in the "very mild" and "mild" categories, although in 
all the seven sets of illustrations brown stain is shown on the upper 
front teeth of "mild" fluorosis. And, whereas Dean 1934, 1935, and 
1938 had said that in mild fluorosis "at least half" of the tooth surface 
was involved, in 1942 he says that — 

the white opaque areas * * * do not involve as much as 50 i)ercent of the tooth. 

Under "very mild" in the 1942 statement he says : 

Frequently included in this category are teeth showing no more than about 
1/2 millimeter of white opacity at the tip of the summit of the cusps of the bicus- 
pids or second molars. 

And at the Delaney hearings he stated that such was usually the case. 
However, in the earlier classifications such teeth were called "ques- 
tionable" unless the areas were also pitted, or larger than % millimeter. 
In a footnote, he explains that — 

In our earlier studies such teeth were commonly classified as "questionable" ; 
during recent years, however, they have been invariably listed as "very mild." 

He thus implies, without saying, that the 1942 classification was used 
in studies II and V. 

But as we have seen on page 11, supra, the original reference is to 
Dean 1938. There is much supporting evidence, both statistical and 
documentary, of the use of the 1935-38 classification. For example, in 
Public Health Reports, February 10, 1939 (the same year studies II 


and V began) a footnote referring to Dean 1935 (identical with 
Dean 1938) reads: 

ThLs classification of diagnosis lias since been abridf^e<l by combining "mod- 
erately sevex'e" and "severe" into one classification : "severe" — HTD. 

I can find no other mention of revision until 1942. 

Furthermore, Dean testified (Delaney hearings, pp. 1647-1648) that 
the reconnnended figure of 1.0 parts per million was based on "the 
study of the 21 cities" and was the "result of plotting a curve on the 
21 cities." (See fig. 1, appended.) And throughout his testimony 
kept basing his ansAvers on evidence from "the 21 cities." This is the 
study by Dean and others (Public Health Report, Apr, 11, 1941, and 
Aug. 7, 1942) to which I have referred as studies II and V. 


But elsewhere in his testimony (pp. 1652 and 1653) Dean stated 
that data from Maywood and from Marion were without significance 
because of changes in the water supply during the lifetime of the 
children examined. That reduces the 2i to 19. 

Repeatedly, and over many years. Dean has pointed out that no 
conclusions can be drawn from the quantitative studies made where 
there have been changes in the source or composition of the water dur- 
ing the lifetime of the group examined. He said it in Dean 1938, 
page 405. He said it in study 11. He said it in Public Health Re- 
ports, December 6, 1935, on page 1720. And he said it in the Amer- 
ican Journal of Public Health, June 1936, page 569. 

In the last article cited, on page 573, he lists Galesburg as lacking 
the "requisites for quantitative evaluation" because of changes in the 
water up to 1928. Nevertheless, he used Galesburg as one of the key 
cities in his case for fluoridation. The statement that protection 
against decay exists eA^en in the absence of visible mottling is based 
on Galesburg (and rests on a fallacious argiunent at that). The 
promised two-thirds reductions in tooth decay is based on the Gales- 
burg-Quincy study. And Galesburg was used as one of the "21 cities." 
So now we have 18. 

But that is not all. If we study the water histories of the 21 cities, 
as given in studies II and V, we find that not only in Galesburg, May- 
wood, and Marion, but also in Elmhurst, Aurora, Joliet, Elgin, and 
by specific statement. East Moline, there were changes which make 
them completely unreliable as evidence. Now we are down to 13, 
and there is a real question about Lima. 

So, actually the 21 cities of which Dean testified boil down to Colo- 
rado Springs with 2.6 parts per million, Kewanee with 0.9, Pueblo 
with 0.6, and 9 cities with 0.2 or less parts per million of fluoride. 

These facts were published in Dean's original articles, and it is 
reasonable to assume that he knew them then. They completely in- 
validate all conclusions based on the study, which means the entire 
case for fluoridation. He knew this in 1952, as his testimony proves, 
and we may assume he knew it all these years. And if the articles 
were ghost-written and he actually didn't know w^hat was in them at 
the time, he should have told the world when he found out. Instead, 
he testified under oath about 21 cities. 




Aurora is the second key city in the case for fluoridation. It is the 
one used to prove that front teeth are not affected. It was also one 
cf the cities selected by McClure for his strange studies on fluoride 
retention and on fluoride effects on bones and growth. (He also used 
Galesburg, Joliet, and Elgin, as well as Amarillo and Lubbock, Tex., 
both listed by Dean in 1936 as lacking the requisites for quantitative 

It is also the city used as a basis of comparison with Grand Rapids 
in the Public Health Service experiment. Fluoride was added at 
Grand Rapids (1945), Aurora was the standard of expected results, 
and Muskegon was left without fluoride as control. 

The water history of Aurora is therefore important. The children 
studied (studies II and V) were 12 to 14 in the fall of 1939. Thev 
were born in 1925, 1926, and 1927. 

Up to 1940, Aurora used water from 13 wells (according to study 
II). The amounts contributed by the different wells was quite 

Well No. 

Year drilled 

AmouBt of fluoride 

Date abandoned 



Not given. 







5 _ . 



0.5 parts per million 

Still in 


0.7 parts per million 


8 - _ - . 

1.3 parts per million .. 




1.1 parts per million 


10 - 


11 . . . _ . 

(2) _ 








1 Well No. 5 was out of use and no water pumped from it during 1935-39 (and for an tinstated prior period). 
It was repaired and returned to use in 1940. The fluoride content after repair is not given. 

2 A mixture of these waters in unknovm proportion in 1939 showed 1.2 parts per million. Between 1935 
and 1939, these 3 new wells supplied from 40 to 70 percent of the water. 

It is clear that the water used by these children while their front 
teeth were forming (up to about age 3 or 4) was not the same as that 
used while the bicuspids and molars were being formed later. It is 
also clear, from the lack of fluorosis in the front teeth that the earlier 
amount was significantly lower. (This is the only known cause for 
this finding and has been frequently observed.) In spite of all this, 
15 percent of the children had definitely mottled teeth, and 32 percent 
more had questionable mottling. 

Nevertheless, on the same page on which the water history is given, 
Dean says : 

From the standpoint of a population exposed for a long period of time to a 
water supply containing small amounts of fluorides, Aurora appears to offer 
many advantages for epidemiological study. Since 1898 the public water supply 
has been obtained from wells into the Cambrian Potsdam sandstone. (Italics 
mine. ) 

He fails to mention that they passed through and received varying 
amounts of water from the water-bearing Niagaran limestone, and the 
St. Peter sandstone. From then on he settled for telling people that 
Aurora has used the same type of water supply for over 50 years. 


I believe it can be shown that, without exception, the witnesses for 
fluoridation testified falsely, but in the other cases it is harder to show 
that they did it knowingly. In general they were merely parroting in 
irresponsible fashion, things they had been told. My notes indicate 
that some of them have perjured themselves elsewhere, but I have 
not yet had an opportunity to examine the actual record of their 


One of the things they teach you in grade-school arithmetic is that 
you can't add dissimilar things. This is not because of any narrow- 
minded rules, but simply because the number you get doesn't mean 
anything. The 5 you get by adding 1 boy and 4 bicycles has nothing 
to do with the 5 you get by adding 4 boys and 1 bicycle, and neither 
is 5 of anything. 

You can't even add different sized units of the same thing. One 
foot and four inches isn't five of anything. It is either 16 inches, or 
11/3 feet. 

These things don't work in arithmetic or anywhere else in mathe- 
matics. Neither do they work in physics, in chemistry, in engineering, 
or anywhere else. Any time you do them, you are in trouble. 

Yet, when the men who should know better add up decayed, filled, 
and missing teeth, getting something they call a DMF rate ; and when 
they tell us things based on comparison of such rates; we bow in 
reverence and do whatever they tell us to do even if it kills us. 


But that is not all. You can't even tell how many teeth are de- 
cayed. In the Journal of the American Dental Association, December 
1941, pages 1959-1961, Radusch (chairman of the Minneapolis caries 
study group), reports a comparison of work done by 8 dentists exam- 
ining 33 patients. Each patient was examined by 3 (in 1 case only 
2) examiners who could take as much time as they liked and knew their 
findings would be checked by the others. The reported findings show 
a standard deviation of from 40 percent above to 40 percent below 
the average number of cavities found. 

The same sort of thing occurs when the same man repeats his own 
examinations. Dirks, Amerongen, and Winkler (Journal of Dental 
Research, June 1951, pp. 346-359) , found that by cleaning and drying 
the teeth, using rubber dam, separators, and spotlights, spending 4 
to 5 hours on each examination, with 2 examiners each making 2 exam- 
inations and comparing results, they would get fairly reproducible 
findings. They discarded the method as too cumbersome and still 
too inaccurate to be reliable. 


When you use X-ray, you are no better off. It is more reliable for 
cavities between the teeth, but less reliable for cavities on the exposed 
surfaces. In the Journal of the American Dental Association, Aug- 
ust 1934, Ennis tells us, on page 1373, that on examining 883 students 
he found 1,662 decayed teeth clinically as against 1,372 found by 
X-ray but that the examinations agreed in only 237 cases. Decay 


was found clinically but not by X-ray in 1,4:25 teeth, while it was 
found by X-ray but not clinically in 1,135. 

And to cap it all, Durkett (Journal of Dental Research, vol. 20, pp. 
70-76, 1941), found that 54 percent of cavities found microscopically 
were found by neither X-ray nor clinical examination. 

p:xperiments meaningless 

These things are not too serious from a personal standpoint. If a 
cavity is of any consequence, it will get big enough to find. From 
an experimental standpoint, however, they are devastating. Neither 
individual nor statistical comparisons can have any meaning. You 
can compare two mouths and be very sure that one is better than an- 
other, but you can't attach any number with any possible meaning to 
the dift'erences. 

For these reasons, the experiments at Newburgh, Grand Eapids, 
and elsewhere can never prove anything if they go on a hundred years 
(except probably that they have produced mottled teeth, and pos- 
sibly that they have caused more or less serious other damage, and 
when these things become known, it will be far too late to undo the 

And there are other reasons why most of these experiments will 
never prove anything. They w ere not designed to ascertain facts, but 
to prove a point. Blayney, at Evanton, has used faulty methods, 
but has made a serious and sincere attem})t to run a respectable scien- 
tific experiment. He, however, is frowned upon in public health circles 
for being honest. 

All this boils down to the plain fact that there is no possible basib 
for the promise of 65 percent reduction in tooth decay. Neither the 
experimental nor the "epidemiological" evidence proves anything. 
And you couldn't even know if it occurred. It is our fantasy, and 
fraudulent fantasy at that. 

It is true that there are places w'here there is more fluoride and 
less tooth decay than in others. There are also places where the re- 
verse is true. We aren't told about the latter. Figure 2, appended, 
shows examples. 

Figure 3 shows the lack of any reliable relationship between the 
amount of fluoride in the water and the damage done to teeth. The 
figures are accepted at face value from the literature. If anyone wants 
to prove that they are unreliable, it's all right with me. Almost all 
of them are quoted from Dean. Ockerse found (Dental Caries, De- 
partment of Health, Pretoria, South Africa, 1949, p. 51) that — 

it was not possible to correlate the degree of mottling with the amount of 
fluroine in the drinking water. 

He attributed this to variations in the amounts present in the same 
supply. As we have seen, there are other important reasons. 


We have seen that jMcClure claims to have proved that fluoride 
cannot accumulate in the body because it is almost all put out in the 
urine. We know his proofs are false. But in any case, "the proof of 
the pudding is in the eating.'' 


In the Journal of the Anieiican Medical Association, October 17, 
1936, page 1273, Dean says that — 

bones of the residents of Colorado Springs or C^'ripple Creek contain about six 
times as mucli fluorine as "control" bones which were from New York City 
and Washington, D. C. 

In the same article, page 1270, he says : 

Lemmou, a pediatrician of Amarillo, Tex., an endemic area, records that 
"some of these babies have more tendency to bowing to the legs, even in the face 
of constant antirachitic therapy, thus supporting the theory that the toxic 
fluorides interfere with bone and dental metabolism." 

In 1933 (Physiological Reviews, vol. XIII, No. 3, July 1933, pp. 
277-300) McClure reported (pp. 295-296) that— 

Stuber and Lang observed a number of hemophilic patients (bleeders) with 
amounts of blood fluoride so abnormally high, that they were led to suspect 
fluoride as a causal factor. 

And that— 

the blood of normal persons residing in Freiburg, Germany, would clot in 9 
luinutes, whereas in the region of Kiel, the clotting time varies from 10 to 17 

And that — 

Analysis of Kiel tapwater revealed a relatively high content of fluorine as 
compared with Freiburg water, which contained no fluorine. 

In the same article, page 291, he reports that — 

dilutions (if sodium fluoride as low as 1:1.5,000,000 (one-fifteenth part per mil- 
lion) may inhlltit the action of lipase (a fat-splitting enzyme). 

Almost everything that happens in the body is accomplished or in- 
fluenced by enzyme action, yet in the American Medical Association's 
Handbook of Nutrition, McClure casually mentions (p. 143) that — 
fluorine is a powerful antienzymatic agent — 
and says (,p. 148) that — 

The effects of fluoride on enzymatic processes were recently reviewed thoroughly 
by Borei — 

in a foreign publication for which McClure gave an incomplete 
reference, but which I have. 


When a drug is added to tlie public water supply, the burden of 
proof that it is safe should rest on those who put it there. It should 
not be necessary to prove it harmful. 

However, I can find no record that at New^burgh or elsewhere, any 
proof has been offered that fluoride does not cause bowing of the 
legs, or increased tendency to bleeding, or osteomalacia in the aged, 
or osteosclerosis or otosclerosis, or premature aging, or interference 
with tlie development of the jaw with malposition of the teeth, or 
increased pyorrhea, or any of the other effects that have been reported, 
much less those we may not yet suspect. 

I cannot find reports of blood-calcium levels, and they should be 
made on individuals, and not be determinations on "pooled blood" 
like McClure's pooled urine analysis. 

48391—54 6 



The "proofs" offered by tlie Public Health Service based on epi- 
demiological studies of vital statistics and census figures are so 
meaningless that it is funny. There is no proof of fluorine content 
of the water in past years, and no proof of how many individuals 
used it how long. It is known that ill effects may take 30 years or 
more to become manifest. Yet few cities have had an unchanged 
water supply for 30 years, and not too many people stay put for 30 

Moreover, most of the effects of fluoride are unreported in the 
vital statistics. We don't report bowed legs, or deafness, or hemo- 
philia, or osteomalacia, or even stiff back (and it can become literally 
stiff as a poker) . And if they were reported, there is nothing in the 
report to show which were caused by fluoride and which were not. 
That might be determined by chemical analysis (as in Keil and 
Freiburg) but it rarely is. There is little incentive since no one can 
undrink water consumed last year, much less 30 years ago. 

You will be told that these things do not happen at one part per 
million, but they can and do. We have seen that it is the dose, not 
the parts per million, of fluoride that matters. Tenfold differences 
in intake from the same source are commonplace. 

In a Public Health Service investigation (Public Health Keports, 
Oct. 26, 1951) on page 1398, Eussell and Elvove report that, both at 
Boulder, with no fluoride, and Colorado Springs, with 2.6 parts per 
million — 

The percentages of third molars in eruption which were decayed, missing, or 
filled was high, rising with age from 70 to nearly 100 percent at Boulder, and 
from 50 to over 90 percent at Colorado Springs. 

About three-quarters of all DINIF third molars were missing in both groups. 
At Boulder 94 percent of third molar loss was reported as due to dental caries 
and about 3 percent due to malposition of the teeth. At Colorado Springs about 
36 percent of third molar loss was reportedly due to dental caries and about 
62 percent due to malposition of the teeth. 

This figures out that 23 times as many third molar teeth were lost 
because of malposition, at Colorado Springs as at Boulder. This 
sounds like quite a significant difference and I, for one, would rather 
lose a wisdom tooth because it was decayed than have it dug out 
because it came in crooked. 


You will be told that all fluoride ions are alike, regardless of their 
source, which is true. You will be told that because of that, the 
effect of sodium fluoride added to the water can be expected to be 
the same as that of fluoride naturally occurring in the water, which 
is absolutely false. The chemical behavior of fluoride ions is vastly 
different depending on the company they are in. This is even more 
true of their physiological behavior. . , , • -a 

In general, fluoride-bearing waters have picked up significant 
amounts of other minerals, and especially calcium, along with the 
fluoride. Adding sodium fluoride, a form in which it rarely if ever 
reaches natural waters, to a water of relatively low mineral content 
cannot be expected to produce the same, or even similar results. 


Deatlierage reported (Dental Fluorosis, AAAS, Washington, 1942, 
p. 83), that in a certain region was a form of shale which — 

contained glauconite, natural greensaud, which softens the water percolating 
through it and also furnishes fluorides. It is these soft waters which cause the 
most severe mottled enamel. 

You will be told that the addition of fluoride is no different than 
the generally accepted addition of chlorine. This is wholly false. 

It is true that fluorine and chlorine belong to the same family of 
chemicals, despite which they are chemically as different as day and 
night, and physiologically as different as day and bicycles. 

The amounts of chlorine used are not known to be harmful and the 
amounts of fluoride are. Chlorine can be readily removed from the 
water by heating and fluoride cannot. Also, there is an essential 
difference in the purpose for which they are added. 

Chlorine is added to make the water safer, by destroying more 
harmful things which are, or may be, present. Fluoride is added 
for the purpose of acting on, and altering, the body of the consumer. 
Chlorine is intended to destroy typhoid bacilli. Fluoride is intended 
to act on you and your children. 


Quite aside from the moral, legal, philosophical, and religious ob- 
jections, which should preclude any thought of fluoridation, there are 
medical reasons against putting any drug in the water supply. In 
fact, it is medical insanity. 

You don't mix a solution of any potent drug, hand it to a patient, 
and say : "Take as much as you like. You are sure to get the desired 
effect and can't be harmed." 

When any drug is added to the water supply, its dose is tied to 
water consumption, which is highly variable and wholly unrelated to 
need for the drug. Moreover, if my child drinks little water, and I 
think he is not getting enough of the drug, I dare not give supple- 
mental dosage because I can't know how much he is already getting 
in the water. 

It follows that only the exceptional child who happens to drink the 
expected amount of water can get a correct dose. All others will get 
too much or too little. 

Another important objection is that it is impractical to use "drug 
grade" chemical in the water. It is too scarce, and too expensive. 
The fluoride they use is meant for industrial use, not human con- 
sumption. No druggist would be permitted to dispense such impure 
medicine even if his conscience would let him. 


If and when fluoride is proved desirable, it can be individually pre- 
scribed and dispensed. It can be now, although few physicians or 
dentists do so, either for their patients or their families. This in 
itself should cast doubt on the project to force it on everyone. 

Alternatively, it can be added to milk, or to salt, and in either case 
the dose can be controlled far better than in the water supply. (Salt 
consumption is far less variable than water consumption, and fluoride- 
free salt would, of course, also be available.) 


Any of these methods would be safer, could be cheaper, and would 
be crenerally preferable to putting it in the water. Moreover, they 
would be optional, and based on education rather than compulsion. 
And that is precisely why the Public Health Service opposes them so 

Beyond any reasonable question, the sole purpose in wanting to 
add fluoride to the water supply, rather than offer it in some saner 
fashion, is so it can serve as precedent for compulsory medication in 
noncontagious disease. 


The Public Health Service has already spent amounts running into 
the millions on the direct and indirect promotion of fluoridation, and 
when Surgeon General Scheele told State and Territorial Health 
Officers (Public Health Report, February 1953, p. 177) that^ 

The skeptics must be convinced that our epidemiological and laboratory 
studies are valid and that the benefits of fluoridation are not to be discarded 
lightly in the face of uninformed opposition — 

nobody thought he was kidding; or that he meant they should pro- 
duce some valid studies. It was a directive to get out and sell a bill 
of goods, and it came from the man who controls the subsidies on 
which they depend. 

Nor is that the only place where hope of reward and fear of punish- 
ment enter in. And when the University of Washington, or of Mich- 
igan, puts on what amounts to indoctrination courses in pseudoscience, 
or when the people from Texas want it made very clear that the uni- 
versity is not to be held responsible for Alfred Taylor's objectionable 
findings, the hope of subsidies or fear of their loss may enter in. 


We hear a lot about socialized medicine, and it has been charged 
that fluoridation will lead to that. Such is not the case, and if it 
were, so what. We already have socialized medicine all over the place, 
and good or bad, nobody seems to get much excited about it. 

Socialized services are offered at the taxpayer's expense, and you 
are free to use them or not as you choose. Fluoridation is totalitarian 
medicine, in that it is compulsory, and things are done to your body 
whether you like it or not. Its only purpose (except for the secondary 
one of providing jobs and "empire") is to serve as precedent for com- 
pulsory medication. 

And in Public Health Reports. January 1952, page 5, the Public 
Health Service stated editorially its — 

conviction that physical fitness, for civilians as well as for troops, was a duty 
owed the Nation. 


Fluoridation is no isolated aberration in the public-health move- 
ment. You will find the same things going on in the fields of tubercu- 
losis, of cancer, of polio, of mental disease, and even of nutrition. 
And if they don't scare us, they should. 

The newest thing in public -health circles, these days, is something 
called "behavior-centered health education." Its essence was well ex- 


l)ressed to me 1 clay here in Washington, D. C, in 1950, by an old 
friend of mine. He said: 

We are under no obligation to tell i>eople the truth. They couldn't understand 
it anyway. Our duty is to tell people whatever will make them do what they 
ought to do. 

The same point of view was expressed by Frank A. Bull, director 
of dental health in Wisconsin, where 50 of the first 100 cities put in 
fluoridation. It was at a symposium on fluoridation of public water 
supplies at the University of Washinoton, on April 27, 1951, and he 

The public has a right to expect leadership from us. If we are going to 
present this fluoridation program to the public with a lot of indecision * * * 
we might as well forget all about a fluoridation program. * * * People must 
be told definitely what they should or should not do to bring about an improved 
public health. When through our collective research, thinking and judgment, 
we have decided that fluoridation or any other procedure is a public health 
measure then we must tell the public that they should adopt that program and 
explain to them how and why we arrived at those conclusions without creating 
unnecessary doubt and suspicion in their minds. 


From June (> to 8, 1051, the Public Health Service and Children's 
Bureau held the Fourth Annual Conference of State Health Directors, 
in the Federal Security Building. The proceedings of the conference 
should be required reading, but are difficult or impossible to obtain. 
All I have are photocopies. 

This same Frank Bull was brought to tell the health directors how 
to '"put over""" fluoridation. They were told how to rig endorsements, 
how to use civic organizations, and especially PTA's, how to use the 
press, how to "build a fire under people," how to "give the business" 
to engineers and waterworks i)eople, how to play off one group against 
another, and so forth. 

They were told to have some sort of answer for every argmnent, not 
to permit opposition on the program, and never, if it could possibly be 
avoided, to let the matter come to the vote of the people. 

They were told what to say, and what not to say, what words to 
avoid. For example, they were told to admit that fluorosis would 
result, but to say that fluorosis in that amount made teeth more 

At the end they listened to reports of "group discussions"' which 
recommended that "fluoridation should be the spark to kindle a desire 
for a full scale dental and general health plan in the community,"' and 
that they should use the term ^''e<xg shell white rather than chalky 
white in describing tooth color." (It is now referred to as "pearly 

They were also told that if there was something the health depart- 
ment wanted to do that didn't come under the definition of "public 
health" they should just "embroider the definition a little bit" and 
then it w^ould be all right. 

And at all this, gentlemen, there was no word of protest ! And what 
they did when they got home is in the record. They did as they had 
been told. 



In 1944, McChire told the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science that children up to age 12 years drink 1% pints of 
water a day and weigh 44 pomids. Of course he didn't say it in 
those words, but that is the way what he says figures out. And what 
he said is an important part of the foundation for all you are told by 
the fluoridizers. 

He said nothing about averages, but if he had it would still be 
just as silly. Averages don't drink water, nor do they get mottled 
teeth or softened bones. It is people, each an individual and every 
one different, who do these things. 

McClure wrote the section on fluorides for the second edition of the 
American Medical Association Handbook of Nutrition. In it he states 
that even where water fluorides are highest, people will rarely get 
more than 8 to 10 milligrams of fluoride daily. But if you allow for 
the different concentrations, you will find that the average intake of 
inactive subjects in one of his own experiments was the equivalent of 
from 2 to 6 times this amount, depending on the climate. If they had 
been active, the amounts would have been much higher. 

In the same Handbook he tells of some experiments he performed, 
from which he concludes that — 

upward of 90 percent of waterborne fluoride (in concentrations of 0.5 to 4.5 parts 
per million) is eliminated in the daily urine of teen-age boys and young men. 

What his experiment actually showed was that less than half the 
fluoride in that range was eliminated. 

Evidence on these matters is given in detail in my written testi- 
mony. We have only time here for a sketch summary. But it is 
important to remember that these statements of McClure's, and those 
by Arnold and Dean which I shall cite, form the basis of the case for 
fluoridation. They are accepted at face value, enlarged, embroidered, 
and paraphrased, and are repeated so often they are accepted as truer 
than truth. 

Now, as to Arnold. In January 1948 Arnold misstated the findings 
in his own work. His statement is a little ambiguous, but by the most 
generous interpretation he understated the number of disfigured front 
teeth of Aurora children by 65 percent. This was in the most widely 
read dental magazine of all. 

The mainstay of the fluoridators, however, is H. Trendley Dean, 
formerly with the United States Health Service. He has long repre- 
sented the American Dental Association in matters pertaining to 
fluorine. With Anold he wrote an official American Dental Asso- 
ciation report on mottled enamel in 1943. 

He was adviser to the committee of the American Water Works 
Association that recommended "endorsement" of fluoridation. He 
was a member of the ad hoc committee of the National Research 
Council that endorsed fluoridation. 

He was a member of the committees that put out books on fluorides 
for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 
1942 and again in 1946. He wrote chapters on fluorides in Gordon's 
Dental Science and Dental Art (1938) and in Pelton and Wisan's 
Dentistry in Public Health (1949), as well as dozens of articles. 


In everything he writes, and in everything based on his writings, 
it is stated or implied that the effects of fluoride are dependable deter- 
mined by the concentration in the water — that certain things occur 
at 1 part per million, and quite different things occur at 0.6 part, or 
2 parts or 5 parts per million. 

For example, he assures us that no harm will be done at a concen- 
tration of 1.0 to 1.5 parts per million, but that whatever effect waters 
with over 2.0 parts per million have on dental caries is largely of 
academic interest because the resultant permanent disfigurement of 
many of the users far outweighs any advantage from the standpoint 
of reducing tooth decay. 

Now, it is true that the dose of fluoride depends to a degree on the 
concentration, in much the same way as the interest you pay depends 
on the rate. But in the one case you must know how much money 
you borrowed and in the other how much w^ater you consume. 

You are told that the differences in water consumption are trivial, 
which we all laiow just isn't true. You are further told that McClure 
has proved that everybody on the average consumes about a quart 
of water a day and will get about 1 milligram of fluoride per day 
from water with 1 part per million of fluoride. Believe it or not, this 
is told you in all seriousness by learned dentists and scientists; and 
if you question it, or the conclusions they draw therefrom, you are 
uninformed, a crackpot, and lack proper respect for the voice of 

But, as we have seen, McClure's own work proves it untrue, as if 
we didn't know it already. And, as I have pointed out in my written 
testimony, differences of 10 to 1 in individual water consumption are 
very ordinary. Disregarding all other factors, these offset the differ- 
ence between 1 part per million and 10 parts per million, and Dean's 
distinction between complete safety at 1.0 to 1.5 parts per million and 
disaster at 2.0 parts per million is, as we said before, just plain silly. 

Actually, the complete safety that Dean talks about has nothing 
to do with what happens to individuals. He has repeatedly said 
that his epidemiological studies relate to groups, and not to indi- 
viduals, and that prognosis with respect to any individual is obviously 
impossible. His original meaning of the word "safe" was that it 
would not cause obvious disfigurement of more than 10 percent of 
children. He has since learned that more than that will be dam- 
aged by his recommended one part per million, and has revised his 
definition of safety to allow for damage to 15 to 20 percent. 

Moreover, Dean's work was concerned Avith children up to age 14, 
and Dean knows that, although the primary damage occurs while 
the teeth are being formed, before they erupt, it becomes increasingly 
evident with age: and tliat if he examined the same group a few 
j^ears later he would find worse damage and to more individuals. 

Furthermore, and whether Dean knew it or not, it is generally 
recognized that the damage done by fluoride, both to the teeth and 
to the system generally, depends greatly on the diet, and especially 
on how much calcium the body gets. 

I have also cited evidence that 9 of the famous 21 cities on which 
the case for fluoridation rests fail to meet Dean's own requirements 
for reliability. Water histories proving this were included in the 
original reports, but have not been mentioned since. 


Either the water supply was chaiiired during the critical period 
while the teeth were bein^ formed, or chan<Ted later in such a way 
that we cannot know the fluoride concentration when the teeth were 
formed. The 9 include all but 1 of the cities in the important ranfje 
of concentrations. Consequently all conclusions are void, and the 
whole case for fluoridation falls apart. 

Furthermore, I have shown that Dean knew that Galesburg did 
not meet his requirement when he used it to prove that fluoride 
would produce a 65-percent reduction in decay; and when he used 
it to prove that protection from decay exists even in the absence of 
visible fluorosis; and later, when he selected it as 1 of his 21 cities. 

The city of Aurora is of critical importance, so its water history 
has been consistently misrepresented. It is the city used for com- 
parison in the artificial fluoridation experiments. But its real im- 
portance lies in the fact that it is the city always quoted to prove 
that mottled enamel attacks only the back teeth when the concentration 
is low. 

Of course, this is not true, and is proved untrue by all observa- 
tions everywhei'e. There are places where it ap])ears to be true, both 
at hijffh and at low concentration. The reason is known, and lias to 
do with the period at which different teeth develop. 

Children born where there is no fluoride, but who chanire in early 
childhood to a water with fluoride, end up with teeth like those in 
Aurora. The water history makes it clear that this is exactly what 
happened, but Dean has covered up by saying that Aurora has had 
the same type of water supply for more than 50 years. 

So far we have seen that the so-called experimental basis for 
fluoridation is faulty. My testimony next showed that all the talk 
about 65 percent, oi" any other specified reduction in tooth decay, is 
nonsense for two reasons : First, because there can be no unit for 
quantitative estimate of decay (the so-called D. M. F. rate makes no 
more sense than when children count up pennies, dimes, and quarters 
to see which has the most money) ; and, second, because the margin 
of error in recognition of decay is so great that 65-percent differences 
are not significant. 

Because of these unavoidable factors, and also because of gross 
faults in the methods, the so-called experiments at Newburgh, Grand 
Eaj^ids, and elsewhere can never prove anything about tooth decay. 

They can, on the other hand, be expected to damage the teeth, and 
probably the bodies, of countless children, although it is still far too 
early for the worst damage to be manifest, and, contrary to the prom- 
ises of Dean and others, we can confidently expect the worst damage 
on the upper front teeth. 

So much for the dental effects of fluorides. The nondental effects 
are far more to be feared. In spite of McClure's so-called experiments, 
it is a fact that fluoride does accumulate in the body and that it does 
do important damage. It is a further fact that damage can occur at 
1 part per million of fluoride. A Public Health Service study, where 
the fluoride was only 2.6 parts per million, showed some 23 times as 
many third molar teeth lost because of malposition than in a nearby 
fluoride-free city. 

It is also known that fluoride damage is greatly increased whenever, 
for any reason, the ability of the kidneys to put out fluoride is impaired. 


I can find no evidence of any serious attempt by the Public Health 
Service to find evidence of fluoride damage. The work they have done 
seems directed solely toward {)rovin<2: that none occurs and the proofs 
are not impressive. There has been some very sketchy work on the 
bone-hardening effects (osteosclerosis) of fluorides. 

I find no mention of the bone-softening effects (osteomalacia), al- 
though they are probably far more common. A report from South 
America estimates that there are some 10,000 cases in the Argentine. 
It is the connnonest form in animals, both experimentally and natu- 
rally, and was described by Bartolucci in 1012, some 20 years before 
either the dental effects or the bone-hardening effects were known. 

Neither have the other known effects of cumulative poisoning been 
sought. I can't even find record of any wide-scale blood-calcium or 
calcium-retention determinations. 

The so-called epidemiological evidence ])ut out by the Public Health 
Service is wholly without value. First, there is no water history of 
the cities, and few cities have had an unchanged water supply for ?>() 
years, which is the time needed for certain effects to appear; second, 
there is no attempt to eliminate persons who have lived elsewhere or 
used other water ; third, most of the effects of fluorides are not reported 
in vital statistics; and, fourth, the known effects of chronic fluoride 
poisoning can all be duplicated by other causes. 

The plain fact is that no respectable evidence for the safety of 
fluoride has ever been offered, wdiile there is abundant evidence of 
danger; and when something is to be added to a public-water supply, 
the burden of proof should certainly rest on those who claim it safe 
rather than on those who say it isn't. 

There are abundant and compelling reasons why, even if everything 
we are told about the safety and effectiveness of fluorides were true, 
it should still not be put in the water supply. As I have pointed out 
in my written testimon}', it is medically insane. But, far more impor- 
tant, it violates our inalienable right to final decision as to what shall 
be done to our own bodies except when exercise of that right creates 
a clear and present danger to the right of others. In this connection 
it is clear that the so-called experiments at Newburgh and (irand 
Rapids are in flagrant violation of the most sacred laws of God and 

It is also in violation of our God-given right to make our own 
mistakes instead of having self-stylecl experts empowered to make 
worse ones for us without our consent. 

We are now confronted with a gigantic steamroller, fabricated by 
the Public Health Service, powered with unlimited Federal funds, 
and directed from Washington. It is designed to put over the greatest 
hoax in history, and to destroy, once and for all, the constitutional 
protections of the citizens. It gives control over our bodies to a grou]) 
of men who believe that "physical fitness is a duty owed the Nation," 
that they are under no obligation to tell the truth but should rather 
tell people whatever will lead them to do as they "ought" ; to men who 
think fuzzily in term of "average people," and are willing to sacrifice 
up to 20 percent of individuals to improve something they call "the 
public health" and can't define. 

In my written testimony I have given some indication of how the 
steamroller works, and the results are manifest everywhere we look. 


I believe that H. R. 2341 is needed to stop all this, and respectfully 
request the committee to bring it out with a recommendation of "do 

I believe, however, that this is just a start on what needs to be done. 
I have extensive evidence of similar activities in many other areas of 
so-called public health, and I am convinced that we need a thorough- 
going investigation of all sucli activities. I ask this committee to do 
all in its power to bring about such investigation. 

And, finally, I wish to request that my entire written testimony, 
with its documented refutation of tlie Public Health Ssrvice pseudo- 
science, be included in the record to serve as source material, and to 
help counteract the mountains of misinformation that have been pub- 
lished on this subject at Government expense. 

The Chairman. Will you suspend for just a moment. Dr. Exner. 
I want to see where we are with reference to time, and the people who 
are present and those who will testify. 

(After informal discussion with various people listed as witnesses, 
as to length of time that they would require, the following proceedings 
were had:) 

The Chairman. You Iniow, it is awfully difficult for me to say to 
anybody who has come a distance such as some of these witnesses indi- 
cate, which indicates their very great interest in the subject and a very 
great interest on their part, to limit them as to the time that they 
should use in speaking; and that applies to these others, too. 

I wish the committee were in a position to give you all of the time 
that you want, but we have so many duties to perform, you know, that 
it is not possible for us to stay here as long as you might wish or as we 
might wish. 

(After further informal discussion:) 

The Chairman. The committee is going to go into executive session 
for about 5 minutes. So, I will declare a recess so that the committee 
may have an executive session and I hope that 5^ou folks who are here 
in favor of the resolution will agree among yourselves as to what time 
you should have and be able to announce that to me when we re- 
assemble the committee in about 5 minutes. 

(Thereupon, the committee took a recess as above indicated, after 
which the following proceedings were had:) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Someone has 
placed on my desk a statement that four witnesses, proponents of the 
bill, have not been called as yet. If I have not called any of their 
names, will you rise and give j^our names ? 

(After further informal discussion as to time required by witnesses, 
the following proceedings were had:) 

The Chairman. Have you folks agreed upon any division of time 
between yourselves? If not, the committee will divide the time ac- 
cordingly. We will allow each witness 15 minutes. With 11 witnesses, 
that is 165 minutes. That would be 45 minutes this afternoon, until 
half past 4, and 2 hours tomorrow morning. 

Now, if in that division of time, there is anyone who wishes to 
give or yield his or her time, or any portion of it, to some other wit- 
ness, they may do so. That is a custom that is very frequently carried 
out in the House by which one Member will yield his time, or part of 
it, to other Members who wish to speak. 


Mr. Francis J, Garvey (American Denatal Association) . Mr. Chair- 
man, on behalf of the opponents of the bill, I would like to inquire 
if the committee plans an afternoon session tomorrow, so that I may 
ask some of our members to catch a plane this evening. 

The Chairman. We are hopeful. 

Mr. Garvey. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Of course, we are in the hands of anyone who may 
wish to i)rechide us from doing so. Then we will have to make the 
time up to you in some other way; but you may rest assured you will 
have the same amount of time that the proponents have. 

Mr. Garvey. Sir, I was thinking of the convenience of the com- 
mittee. Some planned to be here Thursday morning instead of to- 
morrow afternoon, thinking they would be on at that time, and I was 
trying to get them here tomorrow afternoon. 

The Chairman. That is nice of you to think of our convenience. 

I want you to realize we are here for the purpose of giving you folks 
a hearing and we propose to do so. I do not want you to misunderstand 
the purpose. 

Now, let me ask you. Dr. Exner, how much more time you expect 
to take. 

Dr. Exner. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I have no inten- 
tion of taking anything like 2 hours. I was practically through. 
What you referred to as interpolated material was taken out of the 
back portion of my oral presentation, and I was in fact almost through. 

The Chairman. I will say that jou have made a very clear presen- 

I do not know, but I imagine that a great deal of what will be said 
will be repetitious. In other words, I doubt if every witness could 
present a different, entirely new story, from that which has already 
been given. But we must proceed and get through. 

Now, how much more time do you wish ? 

Dr. Exner. I hope to be through in less than 2 minutes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Dr. Exner. What I wish to say is that I have presented the bulk 
of what I feel is necessary to present as oral testimony, and with your 
permission, I would like to merely have appear in the record my 
written testimon}^ as it has been presented witli what I have said con- 
sidered a mere summary of the testimony and with that statement, I 
am very glad at this point to withdraw in favor of some of these people 
who have come so far. 

The Chairman. Well, Dr. Exner, I want you to know, and other 
witnesses, that their entire statement will appear in the record. I 
must say, however, that in connection with yours, you have some charts 
connected with it. I am not sure whether, under the rules of the 
House, we can make those charts part of the record, but your testi- 
mony will appear in the record in full, and in the event the charts 
are not made a part of the record, if you wish to write a description 
of each, instead of the charts, we will see if we cannot get it in the 
record in lieu of the charts. 

Dr. Exner. I would be very glad to do that, and I will not take 
more of your time. I thank you. 

(The description of the charts follows: ) 


Brief Verbal Description of Figures I, II, and III, Surmitteb in Evidence by 

F. B. Exner, M. D. 

Figure I: This consists of two graphs. The first represents Dean's 21 (se- 
lected) cities, and shows the relationship between fluoride concentration in 
the water and "dental caries experience." It has been reproduced many times 
all over the world as proof of an alleged relationship between concentration 
and freedom from tooth decay; and as proof that the protection can be ob- 
tained at one part per million of fluoride in the water. 

The second graph shows how the first graph would look if we eliminated the 
nine cities that fail to meet the Public Health Service's own requirements for 
reliability. The nine are eliminated because of changes in the water supply 
during the lives of the children examined. The second graph makes clear that 
there is no factual basis for the conclusions which have been di-awn from the 

Figure II: This is a graph that shows that Dean's 21 (selected) cities are in 
no sense representative. The 9 cities with fluoride concentration of 0.2 parts 
I)er million or less have an average of only 2 percent of children with no de- 
cayed teeth, whereas the averaw of 17 other places with the same amounts of 
fluoride finds 14 percent of children without tooth decay. (Tristan da Cunha 
was not included or the difference would be much greater. There the fluoride 
concentration is 0.2 parts per million, and there is no tooth decay in children 
up to age 14). 

Figure III : This graph shows the lack of any reliable relationship between 
concentration of fluoride and the number of children with fluoride damage to 
the teeth. It also shows that in this respect, again, Dean's 21 (selected) cities 
are far from typical. 

The Chairman. It is very embarrassing to me to say to you and 
to the others, that it is necessary for us to do this, but we have made 
up a schedule that runs into next month, and it keeps us right with 
our noses to the grindstone to carry through on our schedule. We 
appreciate the importance of the views you folks have. For that 
reason they will be made a part of the record and the record will be 
given a study in its entirety before the committee makes a decision 
on this matter. 

Dr. Exner. I wish to thank you for your courtesy, and to tell you 
that I have no feeling at all of havinji been cut off, because I felt 
when you brought up the question of time that I had actually com- 
pleted", to all intents and purposes, what I planned to say. I thank 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

(After further informal discussion as to time of witnesses, the 
following proceedings were had :) 

The Chairman. I would like to make this very plain that if there 
is anyone present who has not testified, either because they would 
prefer to put their statement in the record or because they wish to 
give their time to someone else, they will not be penalized thereby. 
Their entire statement will be made a part of the record the same as 
if it had been delivered. The reason I am giving such broad discre- 
tion as that is that I am assuming that judgment will be used in the 
length of the statements. I do not want to have to refuse the entry 
of books on the subject, and so forth. 


The Chairman. Dr. Betts, of Toledo, Ohio. 

Dr. Betts is a fellow of the American Association of Educational 
Research and president of the Anti-Cancer Club of America. 
Dr. Betts. Mr. Chairman. Shall I proceed. 


The Chairman. Please do so. 

Dr. Betts. I noted you asked today ''Whom do you represent'"!' 
I wish to state that I represent my five boys who have served this 
country. They fouglit for freedom, and I am here following in 
their footsteps — at least one of them, who passed away this week. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear you in their behalf. 

Dr. Betts. Dr. MacWhinnie, of Seattle, Wash., says : 

Step by step, a piece at a time, our Government planners witli their vast 
resources of money, manpower, and time, are weaving a pattern to destroy all 
vestiges of self-sutficiency in the average American and deliver him as a slave 
to his Government ; all of which is done under the guise of social progress. 

We have all been aware of this for years, and have deplored the 
plaimed destruction of the very qualities that have made America 
great. With the exception of voting at the polls, there was nothing 
the average dentist could do about it until the advent of fluoridation. 

This doctor was a member in good standing of the Association of 
Seattle and was refused to have this article published in the dental 

I wish to state that basic science is composed of three divisions : 
State board of examiners of dentistry, of medicine, and chemistry. 

I am a dentist and have been for about 57 years. I fill teeth ; I drill 
the decayed })ortions out and often use medicine to treat the tooth 
before filling, for one purpose, to prevent decay and for the disease of 
the oral cavity of human beings. That constitutes a part of the j^rac- 
tice of dentistry. 

We as dentists must learn the part which we play in public life as 
in the practice of dentistry. We find that these men who treat people 
through public water systems are practicing dentistry, medicine and 
pharmacy. We find that they have no record of receiving a license to 
do this work. 

It has reached a j)oint where we have to look to law. We believe in 
law. We have city charters. There is a city charter of Toledo [exhib- 
iting paper]. 

I find nothing in there which allows any public official to practice 
dentistry, law, or chemistry, by using the water department. That, as 
Judge Gallow\ay said in Shreveport, does not apply to the public or to 
the Congress of these United States to say otherwise. 

Xow, I go over this country from council to council and of the many 
councils to whom I have spoken, only two have turned me down. That 
is Oberlin, and the one over there at Saginaw, Mich. 

So, we find what the water people sa}-. The water people are those 
who handle the water systems, and I quote from the Journal of Mis- 
souri Water and Sewage Conference : 

The waterworks i)rofession's greatest responsibility is acting only on scientific, 
adequate, and convincing data. To advocate the fluoridation of all water supplies 
is premature and unscientific. Fluoridation remains an experiment. The sim- 
plicity of using the water supply as a vehicle for fluoridation and administration 
of (tther propfjsed corrective and diet-deficient treatment is a temptation, but the 
policy invites serious trouble that should be i-esisted by waterworks personnel. 
Deficiencies fluorine as well as calcium, phosphorus, vitamins, etc., if prescribed 
anywhere should be in the diet and not in the public water supply. 

The first thing a dentist learns, or should learn, when he goes to 
college is to learn how to prevent decay. That is his job. 


Not once have I found in any curriculum of any college in this world 
where he is taught that fluorine prevents decay. It does just the oppo- 
site. I refer you to Funk &Wagnalls Dictionary. I will not read this 
statement, because it was read here this afternoon ; but it shows how we 
set metals, steel on fire, how it sets water on fire ; how it burns up and 
burns through asbestos. So, I will not mention that. 

I might say that we have the great number, or a number of fine 
dental magazines in this country and almost in every one this subject 
is well covered ; but who knows it ? The people do not know it. Here 
is one that just came from the Dental Digest. This is by Dillon. He 
says here that the mottling of teeth and the generative changes was 
found to be the result of the use of thirty -nine hundreds of one part per 

Now, when it comes to the question of fluoridation — this comes 
directly from Mrs. Sykes, who is head of the Women's League of 
England : 

Compulsory mass medication is immoral what ever the avfrnment for any 
particular medicine may be. It is against the internationally accepted prin- 
ciples which govern medical experiments on human beings. It cannot be justi- 
fied by quoting enforced addition to our food in the past. The freedom to 
choose or refuse — the right to contract out — is fundamental. If, in the future, 
Montrose decides by plebiscite to fluoridate their water supply, then alternative 
water supplies must be made available for all those who do not wish to drink 
medicated water. 

This letter is fi'om A. L. Miller, your Congressman here. 

Many have asked about fluoridation of water in the District of Columbia. I 
did introduce a bill in 19.51 to make this possible. After hearing the experts 
on the subject, I withdrew the bill and apologized to my colleagues for intro- 
ducing the measure. I was misled by the Public Health Service, just as many 
are now being misled. The District officials, without authority from Congress, 
proceeded to order fluoridation of water. They should have bad legislative 

I was ill, 41 years ago, and the best physicians of our city said I 
would have to pass on. I went to Colorado and there in 1913 found 
this matter of fluorine, and I think the record will show that to be 
the first of this country. Then, I began investigating what others 
have said ; what others have found, and I have found every university 
in the world ; I have found none of them which state that fluorine 
saves teeth or prevents decay. Everyone of them ; just the opposite. 

A very prominent man in our city, a reporter of the Toledo Blade, 
came to my office, and I told him about that statement. He said how 
about Dr. Black of Gainsville, Fla. I said, "I know Dr. Black." I 
live in Florida half my time. When I find winter coming here, and 
I find Dr. Black and his son are in the business of furnishing these 
fluorides. Therefore, his testimony does not mean anything. I kept 
a copy of the report of the University of Arizona. This report was 
made in 1933, and it has 18 pictures in here showing what fluorine does 
to the teeth and how it destroys the teeth. It destroys all of the 
teeth of animals under their jurisdiction. They have worked on this 
with guinea pigs, rats, and that is their work. 

New Mexico said if the things are true in Arizona, they are just as 
true in New Mexico. They put in 5 years ; 5 years studying this thing 
out and sure enough they put out one here. [Indicating.] It shows 
the menace of fluorine to health, and they give the references here. 
They took them, found out, and published every one of the cities, show- 


ing the fluorine content, and how it reduced disease ; not through pre- 
venting disease. 

Now we come to a real good one. This is from Cornell, New York 
State Veterinary College, Ithica, N. Y. It shows here what it does 
to the cows ; how they eat a little food for about o or 4 months, and they 
lose their teeth. They not only lose their teeth, they get large 
knuckles; they get very large knuckles. Their bones get soft and 
when they try to reproduce, they fall down and break their necks, and 
break their ribs. They become sterile. I mean, the cows become 
sterile. They become sterile to such an extent that out of every herd 
out of here, in our country, 20 out of a hundred are sold because they 
have become sterile and of no account; and when you hit a farmer's 
business, he does not like it. The result is that is the whole thinking 
recorded in this book by Udall, at Cornell University — and this is only 
2 yeai'S ago — 1952. 

So, I have collected, and collected, all during these years these items, 
and here you find where in England, it is called a cattle killer; the 
cattle killer. It may affect vegetables, too. Here is the paper, and it 
tells about how terrible it is to lose these cows by the hundreds in 
England, and down here "the unseen enemy is fluorine.'' 

So. I ask our C. D. man here in Washington — civil defense — "What 
can you tell me about this gas, this fluorine gas we feed to cows?" 
He says, "We have no record. We have no record ; I am sorry to say 
that I have no information about the episode of England to which you 
refer, where livestock were killed and eaten — from eating food con- 
taminated by fluorine." 

Now, he says he cannot give me the formula. 

I have been publishing the formula here for 2 years, nerve tests. 

And, he has given 2 pages to this magazine — 2 of them. He went 
before the Health Department and for a long time he had to keep it 
under cover — for 3 weeks — and it was then given. 

The Chairman. Dr. Betts, the clerk informs me that your 15 min- 
utes have expired. 

Dr. Betts. Fine. I am willing to close. 

The Chairman. Will you leave with the committee those books to 
whicli you have just referred, and any of these other papers that will 
be exhibits in the case, for the study of the committee ? 

Dr. Betts. I wanted to show you these items here. I have made it 
up in this book form and folder, so j'ou can have a thousand times more 
than I have given here today; a thousand times more, and there it 
all is. I want to present this to the committee. 

The Chairman. It will be given the study of our commitee and its 

Dr Betts. We cannot understand why people do not react, when 
they read things like this. 

I appreciate the opportunity of having had this hearing. The first 
time I have ever liad such a privilege. 

The Chairman. We thank you for the information you have brought 
to the committee, and I assure you that we will give it very careful 

Dr. Betts. Thank you very much. These [exhibiting papers] are 
along the same line which I would like to have you consider. 

The Chairman. The clerk will take possession of those statements. 

(The statement presented by Dr. Betts is as follows:) 


Statement of Dr. C. T. Betts, Toledo, Ohio 

People and things change. Principles and facts — never. "The penalty sood 
men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be rules by evil men." — Plato. 

Basic science act is composed of three divisions — code for the practice of medi- 
cine, code for the practice of dentistry, code for practice of pharmacy. All three 
have a State lioard of examiners which examines applicants who uiust have 
def^rees from their respective colleges and show fitness to practice their profession. 

I am a dentist. I fill teeth, drill the decayed portion out and often medi- 
cine to treat the tooth before filling for one purpose — to prevent decay or further 
disease of the oral cavity of human beings. That constitutes a part of the prac- 
tice of dentistry. Prescribing medicine or chemicals to prevent disease of the 
teeth or tissues of the oral cavity is dentistry now performed by water boards 
through flnoridation or by placing metallics on the outside of the teeth to pre- 
vent decay — just as I do by placing metal fillings on the inside of a tooth to 
prevent decay. There is no difference. Both are the practice of dentistry. 

Physicians also must comply with the rules, pass a State medical lioard exam- 
ination before the.v can treat human beings for any disease or i)rescribe medicines 
for internal or external use. This is the practice of medicine. Medics and 
dentists are the only persons allowed by law to prescribe chemicals for treatment 
of disease of the human family. A pharmacist is one who has a license from the 
State pharmacy board to sell or compound chemicals to fill prescripticnis pre- 
scribed by the medics or dentists for human disease. 

The Federal Government is a higher authority so a pharmacist selling 
potent poisons or drugs coming nnder the oi»ium or other act. must make a 
complete report of such pnrchase and the buyer nnist siun his name on the 
register at the time of purchase. The package nuist he marked with the sknll 
and crossbones. 

The code of law regulating the practice of the aliove professions is on file 
at the examining board's ofiices in every State. It is definitely stated in all of 
them what constitutes the practice of each and the fines provided for the 
vidlati'.ms of them by those found guilty of "practicing without a license." 

It is my ptirpose to show that many city officials, including water boards, are 
now practicing all of the alxive professicms contrary to city charters. State codes 
of basic science and the higher laws of onr Nation regulating human liehavior. 
Such action was never taken before by public officials. Those of Germany. Adolf 
Hitler and his underofficials applied the same principles as those now known 
as the proponents of flnoridation. Water boards are now commanded by higher 
(.fficials, mayors, councils, etc. to place medicine, drugs, or fluorides in public 
water supply for the purpose of medical treatment of children (human beings) 
to produce a physiological change in their bodies to prevent caries — the decay 
of the teeth — that constitutes the practice of dentistry without a license — a 
criminal act. 

It should be noted that the amount of fluorine normally present in water 
varies from one locality to another, and even within a given locality may vary 
seasonall.v or even from day to day. as deternnned l^y weather conditions and 
other natural forces. For this reason an actual control of the flu(»rine content 
of the water being dispensed for drinking puri)oses would require constant 
checking of the fluorine content of the incoming water, and a considerable 
flexibility in the quantity of fluoride added to the water which is 8.1 percent 
poisonous compared to 15 percent in natural fluoride. Such a l)lending of deadly 
poisonous chemicals for dispensing to the public comes definitely within the 
scope of our laws on pharmacy. The water departments thus are engaging in 
an unlicensed practice of pharmacy. The prescril>ing of mixtures of water 
and fiuorides to be sold for internal or even external use, where a medicinal or 
prophylactic purpose is intended, comes within the practice of medicine — yet 
the persons making the decisions, prescribing the amounts, and taking the re- 
sponsibilities, are not doctors or chemists but ordinary citizens who serve in 
elective positions on our city councils, without (in most cases) either license to 
practice medicine or even the most elementary technical knowledge of the 
physiological effects of chemicals on the various organs of the human body. 

The law provides that the skull and crossbones be placed on such compounded 
drugs before sale. The violation by water boards is very clear on this point. 
Changing a public water system which belongs to the people, over into a medical 
distribution system for profit to the purveyors of poisonous drugs and mixing 
machinery, is something unbelievable in America, yet it is now operating on 17 
million of our citizens (a promurder program) represented only as a child 


tooth-decay preventative idea. May I call your attention to a recent case of a 
lady in Ohio vpho firmly believed a drop of such poison would benefit her husband. 
Such a small amount was perfectly safe * * *. She put it in his coffee. 

Imagine, they charged her with murder and she was eventually electrocuted 
ai the Ohio penitentiary. This lady was no more guilty than Hitler's gang 
who were stopped at the end of a short rope, or our zealous fluoridators placing 
a highly poisonous drug in the public water system. 

Look at another fine Ohio city. I spoke to their council, showed them what 
they would be doing if they attempted to kill their women and children with 
these fluorides. In went the fluorides anyway. In 2 months, thousands were 
covered with leprosylike sores. Now, $18,000 worth of fluorides are for sale, 
also the machinery. Try and iiet the facts from the mayor, any member of the 
city council or water board or even the newspaper. Evidently, somebody thinks 
we have some short ropes in this country. Ever since time, as we know it, every 
city has had laws to provide good, potable, clean, wholesome, pure water for 
distribution to the citizens. Now, for the first time, officials are turning these 
cities into chemical distribution water polution centers. 

Our Civil Defense Governor, Val Peterson, spent 3 weeks behind closed doors 
with our health department on this fluorine question and got nowhere with 
them. He felt compelled to issue a warning. In doing so, he gave a press 
release as follows : 

[Toledo Blade, August 8, 1953] 

'•Russia Expected To Use Neeve Gas in Any Attack on United States — 

C. D. Chief Says — Public Reportedly Knows Little About Horror Weapon 

"Washington, August 8 (NANA). — While the world's greatest fear in recent 
years has centered around the atomic and hydrogen bombs, public concern for 
other weapons — just as lethal in character — has all but gone by the board. One 
of these is nerve gas ; by far the most potent war chemical known to man. Use 
of this deadly chemical on unsuspecting, unprepared Americans — they know 
little or nothing about it — it is no less a possibility today than an attack on the 
United States by Russia. At a closed-door hearing last month (the testimony 
was released 3 weeks later) Civil Defense Administrator Val Peterson told the 
House Appropriations Committee that Russia would probably resort to nerve 
gas and other chemical agents in any attack on this country. 


"Mr. Peterson's reasoning was based on two considerations : Nerve gas is 
cheap compared to atomic bombs, and American officials are certain Russia has 
the production know-how. Nerve gas is a German invention. Swarming onto 
German soil in the closing days of World War II, the Russian Army made a 
beeline for Hitler's war-gas plants. All the secrets were there including facts 
about nerve gas, which all Americans should know. Nerve gas ranks with the 
most horrible of weapons because of the alarming speed with which it downs its 
victims. The extraordinary difficulties encountered in rescue operations and its 
capacity for causing panic, it is difficult to discover until it's too late. 

"gas is contagious 

"Death can follow contamination in 1 to 20 minutes depending on the dosage. 
And the gas is contagious. Contact with a nerve-gas victim can contaminate 
physicians, ambulances, and hospital equipment. The sight of a victim in the 
throes of a nerve-gas attack is terrible in the extreme. He struggles in vain 
effort to breathe, experiencing wheezing, gasping convulsions and massive saliva- 
tions. Nerve gas enters the body through the eyes, nose, mouth, and pores, seek- 
ing out the nervous system. It does not affect the lungs or skin but by damaging 
the nerves, it renders muscles useless and seriously affects the brain. 

"Widespread ignorance of nerve-gas characteristics and the probable successs 
with which it might be used against uninformed Americans is not the fault of 
the public. They simply have not been informed. Many high-ranking ofiicials 
are just as nuich in the dark. And still there are no signs which point to an 
administration program designed to educate the public along these lines." 

Our Federal Health, Education, and Welfare Committee instead of taking the 
warning and stopping fluoridation at once, stepped up the pace and pushed to its 
48391—54 7 


/ith power. When Governor I'eterson saw this, he knew the only avenue to put 
his warning over to the puhlic was to prepare an ai-ticle for a lay majiazine as a 
highly colored attractive item. Collier's Weekly was decided upon and live 
pages were given in the Xovemher 27, 1953, issue. 

"G-Gas — A New Weapon of Chilling Tekkor 

'•Quite apart from the danger posed by the fumes, it's possible that droplets of 
the licpiid gas from a low bomb burst might spray civilians. Liipud CV, on the 
skin is painless; it causes no irritation and doesn't burn or scar. A victim 
wouldn't know it was there unless he saw it fall. But, if he didn't wash it off 
at once with soap and water or a solution of washing soda, it would be absorbed 
through the skin into the l)lood stream and cause his death within an hour. 
How is it alisorbed? Doctors don't know. But they have found that ordinary 
clothing, rubber boots, even gloves and laboratory clothing offer little protec- 
tion — the liquid gas seeps right through them. Only specially treated decontam- 
ination clothing provides protection and it must be continually washed down. 

"Just how does the gas kill? It wrecks the nervous system. Our nerve 
centers function because of two vital chemicals which the body produces. One, 
acetylcholine, acts as a bridge between the nerve endings and the muscles and is 
produced when the brain sends an impulse down to the nerve endings. The 
second, cholinesterase. moderates the activities of acetylcholine. Without it, 
acetylcholine accumulates until it causes excessive and nncontrollable muscle 
activity and eventually convulsions. Nerve gas knocks out the cholinesterase and 
the accumulating acetylcholine soons sends the muscles into convulsive spasms. 
Paralysis and death follow." 

Again the public paid little or no attention and looked upon it as merely a 
news story rather than a warning Again fluoridation is stepped u]i and for the 
first time in history, a Jlidwest city on April 11. lO.")!, passed fluoridation 100 
percent and turned it over to the water l)oard. Fluorine has Iteen outlav.-ed by 
the V. N. for any war purpose. Fluorine cf)mpound 1080 is used by the predatory 
animal board to exterminate and in one season 9.1 percent of those animals in 
Oregon and Washington were killed. Fluorine is a rat poison used by Val 
Peterson for Government experiments to show how to protect Americans in case 
of attack. 

Our own H-bomb recently exploded 2.000 miles from our shores, showered 
fluorine all over our country eating millions of holes in our automobile glass. It 
etches or eats holes in glass 1 inch in diameter or larger when it conies in contact 
with a speck so small it cannot be seen with the naked eye. I challenge anyone 
to show a single law in our land which allows our water systems to be turned 
into so-called medicinal dispensing agencies. 

I challenge anyone to show that any professor or university of the world 
where fluorine has been examined, has issued bulletins showing fluorine prevents 
tooth decay — caries — or that fluoridation is not a hoax, or that fluorine does not 
destroy teeth, or that fluorine does not destroy all the body, not only of children 
but animals as small as chinchillas and as large as wolves and horses; or that 
the Agriculture Department does not advise that it be given to brood sows because 
it produces abortion. We are in the presence of men who advise that women 
and children take this drug from the public drinking water system. 

The council of Pasadena, Calif., voted to abandon the practice of medicine and 
the dental profession by fluoridation ; that such criminal acts were outside the 
duties of the council. This was confirmed by Judge U. Galloway of Shreveport, 
La.. Injunction Against Fluoridation Granted, January 4, 19.'54, as follows: 

"* * * medication, in law understanding, including prophylaxis or preventive 
measures, when applied to the individual * * * Considering the end results that 
are sought, we cannot escajie the conclusion that it is a form of medication, or 
at least a scientific treatment of a sort of hydrotherapy ; by way of ingesting these 
mineralized waters, of and for the children of the conuuunit.v. under 12 years of 
age. No person or segment of the poimlation having that condition ( dental caries 
or tooth decay) can on that account have any adverse effect on the health, dental 
or otherwise, of the general public or of any segment thereof. We repeat, in our 
opinion, this is not a matter of the public dental health. It is strictly within the 
realm of individual and personal dental health and hygiene within which each 
person should be free to choose his course for himself and those for whom he is 
responsible in the family relation. To this field, the just powers of the Govern- 
ment do not extend." 


Foi- many years the Amerieau Dental Association spent larjue sums of money 
to determine how to prevent caries; decay of the teeth: the prevention and care 
of the disease. They sent Weston A. I'rice, D. D. S.. all over the \V(n-ld. For 
9 years this man traveled into many countries; photographed and sought every 
source of record information. On his return he was immediately placed on 
(he ADA council. His findings were published in the Journal, afterward in the 
book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. 431 pages, the final paragraph of 
which are these words : "Life in all its fullness is this Mother Nature Obeyed." 
We read also in the book that "food is fabricated soil." Our life is maintained 
by food, not by poisonous chemicals. For 30 years the great truths given by Dr. 
Price has been heralded over the world. 

Fluoridation, a new idea, was brought to the attention of the ADA as a 
cure-all and the prevention of caries, b.v aluminum interests. Eleven fluorides 
and aluminas are byproducts of the manufacture of aluminum. Mr. Oscar 
Ewiug, an attorney for the aluminum interests, is claimed to liave been on a 
stipend of $750,000 a year salary. He was placed at the head of our National 
Security Administration at $17.r)00 .-uuiually. As soon as he got into this Fed- 
eral position, a sudden emergency was declared to save children's teeth. The only 
way to prevent caries was to place this deadly fluorine in our public water 
systems, thereby increasing the sale of chemicals manufactured by his former 

An army of agents called directors of national. State, county, regional and 
divisional and other fancy names, for all the country. These persons are sent 
to speak before PTA's, commerce, and many other clubs, councils and mass meet- 
ings to tell how to preserve the kiddies' teeth. These men have plenty of 
money ; they travel to and from all parts of the United States, wherever people 
are known to object to drinking tiuoride poison; also money grants by the hun- 
dreds are paid to university men in localities where citizens are known to be 
questioning the merits of the use of fluoride in drinking water. Personally, I was 
severely poisoned by this combined aluminum and flourine gas, so kept every 
scientific publication I could find, during the last 41 years. When I learned that 
men like Dr. E. V. Norton, Dr. Parran, and Dr. John Studebaker resigned be- 
cause they refused to go along with the poison program, I too decided to remove 
my coat and combat this trend to the best of my ability. I have addressed many 
city councils and only Saginaw, JNIich., and Oberlin, Ohio, refused to listen. 

The first record against polluting drinking water came from the Missouri 
Water and Sewerage Conference. Jul.\- 10.jl : 

"The ease with which a communal water supply can be made a vehicle for 
the administration of all sorts of chemicals to the consumers, holds out great 
promise but it invites trouble. Public health workers and waterworks engineers 
and administrators have a grave responsibility which extends far beyond any 
good or evil that may come from fluoridation of the water .supply, namely, the 
responsibility of acting only on adequate and convincing evidence. Any present 
judgment of the value and safety of this method is tentative. Therefore, to ad- 
vocate it, except as an experiment, is premature and economically a gamble. 

•'The waterworks profession's greatest responsibility is acting only on scien- 
tific, adequate, and convincing data. To advocate the fluoridation of all w^ater 
supplies is premature and unscientific. Fluoridation remains an experiment. 
The simplicity of using the water supply as a vehicle for fluoridation and ad- 
ministration of other proposed correctives and diet deficient treatment is a 
temptation, but the policy invites serious trouble that should be resisted by the 
personnel of the waterworks. Deficiencies of fluorine as well as calcium, 
phosphorus, vitamins, etc., if prescribed anywhere, should be in the diet and 
not in the public water supply." 

We find in Paterson, (N. Y.) p]vening News, November 6, 1953: 

"Dr. Leonard A. Seheele (Surgeon General) in discussing mass application 
methods for preventing noninfectious diseases, said a case in point was fluori- 
dation of public water supplies to reduce tooth decay. Such a communitywide 
attack on 'far more serious diseases than dental decay probably wull be forth- 
coming after laboratory tests have paved the way' he predicted." 

The Missouri conference saw this was coming in 1951. I do not yet know if 
cancer or heart disease will be the next to receive water treatment. Kidney, 
liver, and nervous diseases will follow, then all diseases will be treated by the 
public water systems. The time to stop saving teeth and treating all the other 
diseases by using the water systems is now in my opinion. Let doctors and 
dentists practice their professions. 



Winifred M. Sykes, British Housewives League : 

"Compulsory mass medication is immoral, whatever the argument for any 
particular medicine may be. It is against the internationally accepted prin- 
ciples which govern medical experiments on human beings. It cannot be justi- 
fied by quoting enforced addition to our food in the past. The freedom to cbor>.«!ft 
or refuse is fundamental." 
J. McFarland Forbes, journalist : 

We find in a recent issue of Health for All, London, England : 
"The basic assumption on which the whole case of fluoridation is founded, 
that the addition to water of sodium fluoride, sodium silico fluoride, or hydro- 
fluoric acid in the precise equivalent of similar concentrations of naturally 
occurring fluorine compounds (usually calcium fluoride) is completely false. 

"Charles Dillon, D. D., S. L. D. S., Fort AVilliams, found that sodium fluoride 
reacts progressingly upon bone in extremely low concentrations, while calcium 
fluoride does not react but is progressively absorbed. Dr. Dillon remarked: 
'This is a completely new statement of the facts which has not even been 
touched upon by those who are ready to consider their work so satisfactorily 
complete that they are now prepared to fluoridate the water supplies of the 
whole world.' I would like to see this quotation in letters of fire burning 
over every city hall where councilors are toying with the idea of fluoridalion. 
I suggest that rat poison should be used on rats and that human beings be 
allowed to drink fluorine-free water." 

All universities where extensive investigation has been made on animals and 
children do not issue bulletins which shows that fluorine prevents decay. Just 
the opposite, they show destruction of not only the teeth but all organs of the 
body. I refer you to bulletin No. 45, University of Arizona. Eighteen pictures 
of animals, four of children whose teeth shows destruction by fluorides. 
University of New Mexico, No. 349 : 

This work is most complete showing parts per million fluorine content of 
every village and city and the effects upon children, animals and bones, called 
The Menace of Fluorine to Health. 

The Cornell Veterinarian, volume XLII, No. 2, Ithaca, N. Y., State College, by 
D. .J. Jdall and Keith Keller : 

Fluorosis in cattle. — This work shows the effects of fluorine on cattle, how 
it destroys teeth, bones, and the reproductive organs, stunts the growth, causes 
diarrhea. Cows have estrum every 9 days and bulls are unable to breed after 
eating fluorinated food, about 3 months. An excellent bulletin for women to 
learn how to keep a family small. 

The Agricultural Department issues bulletins on how to destroy worms in 
pigs, No. 274, which informs the farmer not to feed fluorine to breed sows ; 1 dose 
kills the worms in nonbred hogs ; 1 dose kills the little pigs in bred sows ; our 
Health Department in Washington recommends fluorine for our wives. Ergot 
and fluorine was sold years ago for abortion purposes. Laws have been passed 
making it a criminal act to sell it. 

It has been a Federal crime to place any nonnutritive or deleterious substance 
in food offered for public sale, the quantity of fluorine thus used was irrelevant. 
I point you to Leo Kaufmann, at Boston. All he did was to pass some beer, 
containing a little fluorine, over a State line. He was heavily flned. Now the 
Federal law has been changed making what he did lawful but our officials have 
not returned the $10,000 fine paid by Mr. Kaufmann. Think it over. 

This conspiracy to place fluorine in the water is worldwide. Who is behind 
it? Chemical and machinery manufacturers of the aluminum industry for one 
purpose only — to make money. Many hundreds of our citizens have become 
incensed at the arrogance of public officials, doctors, dentists, and others who 
demand by law that we must open our mouths and swallow potent poisons 
because they think it is good for us ! We have published numerous leaflets, 
brochures, pamphlets and books all pointing out the damage that fluorine 
causes. The Civil Defense had a conference with the Health Department over 
6 months ago. What was said is still secret but Val Peterson, civil Governor, 
has issued two warnings, August 5, 1953, to the press and November 29, Collier's 
Weekly on the poison gas of fluorine. In spite of this, the promotion of fluo- 
rine continues — an absolute hoax. The following letter is an example of many 
received from all over the world : 


Leo Spira. M. D., Ph. D., New York City, N. Y : 

"As a medical man, I have no hesitation in stating that the principle of adding 
a potent poison, such as fluorine is, to the public water supplies runs counter 
to every clinical, physiolo.sical and pharmacological doctrine and should he 
categorically rejected by all means at the disposal of civilized man." 

The question of being compelled to eat or drink what public officials think 
might be good for us, came recently when medics and dentists decided they 
have higher intelligence and on that account, should dictate what we should 

We do not feel that anyone should have the power to compel us to consume 
that which we do not want. We desire to exercise our right of choice. That 
is fundamental to liberty and freedom. If denied that choice, we are no longer 
free men. 

W. R. Cox : 

"Put fluorine in our water? May God give us the strength to investigate and 
understand authorities and experts who are, day by day, slowly and surely 
causing us to demand our destruction." 

On June 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation came into force and all 
men in bondage were made free. Now gradually, as Plato warned, we are 
being ruled by evil men — those who have no regard for their fellows beings 
and, if this program works with fluoridation, our freedoms will disappear, one 
after another, then we may remember our American history and few may recall 
those words of Patrick Henry but it will be too late. 

The time to stop these procrime conspirators is now. 


The Chairman. Mrs. Hugo Franzen, 767 San Bruno Avenue, San 
Francisco, Calif. 

Mrs. Franzen. Mr. Cliairman and members of the committee, 
thank you for the honor and privilege of being here. 

The manner in which the poisoning of our water supplies with 
fluorides was put over in San Francisco — by the usual methods — pro- 
vides an excellent example as to why Federal legislation is necessary 
and urgent to stop this scheme. 

George Heard, D. D. S., for many years a dentist in Hereford, Tex., 
called the "town without a toothache," stated in a letter to Mr. Roby 
C.Day, May 15, 1954: 

I believe that fluorine does, in a mild way, retard caries, but I also believe 
that the damage it does is far greater than any good it may appear to accom- 
plish. It even makes the teeth so brittle and crumbly, they can be treated only 
with difficulty, if at all. It is hellish and un-American to put poison in city 
water supplies and force citizens to drink it. I sincerely hope that at least 
some of your dentists are cooperating with you in getting the truth about tooth 
decay over to your citizens. 

The methods used in this city and other cities, to put over fluorida- 
tion, are equally hellish and un-American. 

Before election in 1951, a local dentist publicly opposed by having 
his name on a little card against proposition M (fluoridation). Sud- 
denly he was silent; after election, he informed me, when some mem- 
bers of the San Francisco Dental Society noticed his name, the secre- 
tary of the society came to him and threatened him, stating that if he 
further opposed fluoridation in any way, they would prevent him from 
ever again obtaining insurance reasonably and force him out of 
dentistry. This they could do, he stated, and so he was silenced, just 
as numerous others have been silenced. The medical and dental so- 
cieties in this city, I am informed, keep their members in line in this 


iiuiiiner. My 3 ^-ears spent in opposing this selieme, confirm that 

Apparently, section 20 of the code of ethics of the American Dental 
Association, prevents any opposition — it reads as follows: 

Sec. 20. Education of the Public. — A dentist may properly participate in a 
program for the education of tlie public on matters pertaining to dentistry pro- 
vided such a program is in keeping with the dignity of the profession and has 
the approval of the dentists of a community or State acting through the appro- 
priate agency of the dental society. 

Where is our constitutional o-uaranty of freedom of speech? 

In April of 1951, the finance committee of our board of supervisors, 
C'liairman Chester McPhee and Supervisors Don Fazackerley and 
Dewey Mead, scheduled a 2 p. m. hearing on fluoridation, to which I 
was invited to attend and oppose. A short time before the noon hour 
of that day, I discovered that the hearing had been set up to 1 p. m. 
without our knowledege. 

At this meeting, Sidney Epstein, D. D. S., representing the San 
Francisco Dental Society, stated among other inaccuracies, that 
Springfield, Mass., was fluoridating. I had just read a letter from 
Paul Manning, D. M. D., LL. B., Springfield, written to Gov. Earl 
Warren of California, asking for an equal opportunity for opponents, 
stating that Springfield was not fluoridating and giving the reasons for 
not doing so. 

From the action of the committee, I had to conclude that they 
assumed the opponents were wrong. A letter to the mayor of Spring- 
field would have quickly confirmed the accuracy of my statement. 
I can only assume that until quite recently, perhaps, no investiga- 
tion was conducted to ascertain the accuracy or the truthfulness of the 
statements of the fluoridators. 

Someone had to be wrong. 

It appears the opponents were condemned without investigation — ■ 
this procedure has continued the past 3 years here. 

In December of 1953, Supervisor Francis McCarty introduced an 
ordinance which would authorize the extension of the fluoridation pro- 
gram throughout San Francisco. We opposed, with tlie results re- 
corded in the following attached copies of letters and comments. 

San Francisco II, Cat.if.. April 7, WoJf. 
Hon. Francis McCarty. 

Memher of Public Utilities Committee, City Hall. 
Dear Sir: Although the question of extending the tiuoridation program in the 
city and county of Saii Francisco has l)een returned to your coinniittee for fur- 
ther hearing, I am advised tlirnugh the news])ai)ers that no one will be peruiitt;'d 
the floor who has been heard on this matter. 

I wish to advise that last night over station on KGO. a broadcast was made of 
a portion of the debate i>y the lioard of supervisors on the subject of flnoridation. 
This broadcast was heard by many thousands of citizens of San Francisco, dur- 
ing which debate I was seriously misquoted by Supervisor :McCarty. very much 
to my detriment and to the detriment of the cause I represent. 

In the interest of fairness, honesty and integrity of the board of supervisors, 
I demand that on Monday next. I be given the floor of the board of supervisors 
for the purpose of pointing out these misquotes and correcting the errors for 
the record, and for the beter information of those members of the board of su- 
pervisors who have never heard the full story against fluoridation. 
Yours very truly, 

Mrs. Hugo Feanzen. 


S.vN Fran('I.-(o 10. Calif.. I/>/// li. tU'i'i. 
Hon. Gkobge Christophek, 

President, Board of Siiixrvifiors, iiaii Fraiicisro, Culif. 
Dear SiK : I am issiiiiiif this a.^ a citi/en and taxpayer ajiaiiist certain 
statements l).v Supervisors Francis McCart.v and Mattliew Carberry durinii the 
March 81. '[U7A. hearinj;- of the pnl)lic utilities coniniittee on fluoridation and 
the April o meeting of tlie hoard of supervisors. 

Supervisor iMcCarty. in answer to one of the opponent's ipiestions — why the 
coniiiiL; March 81 hearing- 1 ad n(it been prblicized in <irder tluit those who wisli 
to oppose or he present could atfend — stated that the hearing liad been widely 
l)ublici^ed by our newspapers. Supervisor McCart.v made this same statement 
before the board meeting;. 

I contacted iMrs. ^\ arren Fon.i of the San Francisco F]xaniiner, ]Mr. Stewart 
Uasmussen of the San Francisco Cali-IUilletiu. the San Francisco News Library, 
]\Irs. Lin.u'le of the San Francisco ( hronical and .Mr. Griffith of the San Fran- 
sisco I'rotiress. 

All stated there bad i)een no notilication of that coming liearintr in any of 
their newsi)apers. 

Supervisor Carherry stated t(» the board of su])ervisors. and I quote: "I 
asked the cpitstion if a local, (pialilied doctor or dentist would or had made a 
statement on the .-ub.lpct opposjim fluoridation as bein.';- harmful and T was told 
no such iierson (pialitied would make siich a statement.'' 

1 (piote Supervisor ]\IcCarty as he referi'ed to the same statement: '"Is tliere 
one doctor of reputation in the city and county of San Francisco or one dentist 
that you can name who is opposed to tluoi-idation';' The answer was "No." 
P.oth statements are false. 

Supervisor Carherry asked me if there is any doctor or dentist in this city who 
oppased fluoridation that I could .^et to come before tlie conunittee and oppose 
fluoridation. I answered "No," but attempted, unsuccessfully, to explain that 
answei-. Both su]X'rvisors discounted and disqualified any information iiiven 
by those who are not doctors, dentists, etc. Facts are facts and truth is truth, 
regardless of whether a layman or professional peojile state those facts. The 
opponents feel this board of supervisors should understand why no doctor or 
dentist from this city and county is willinii' to oppose fluoridation before a ccnu- 
mittee or publicly. There are doctors in this city who even warn their own 
patients not to drink the poi.soned water, but they dare not oppose publicly. I 
thorou.s'hly explained this situation to Supervisor Carherry, by ph<me. after the 
March 31 hearing and liefore the April 5 board meeting. One dentist in this 
city told me that he had been threatened and silenced because he opposed 
publicly befor election. He (Supervisor Carberry) made no I'eference to it, 
however, at the iioard meeting. 

The opponents object to certain statements made by Supervisor McCarty in 
summarizing the opposition. I quote: "As far as I am concerned, I think the 
merits are all in favor of fluoridation." 

In the spring of 19r)2, the Delaney congressional investigating committee 
conducted extensive hearings on fluoridation. Eighteen scientists, testifying un- 
der oath, presented both sides. That conunittee issued a final report and warned 
go slow on fluoridation. I quote from that flnal report. Union Calendar No. 7S7 : 
'•The committee believes that if connnunities are to make a mistake in reaching 
a decision on whether to fluoridate their public drinking water, it is jtreferable 
to err on the side of caution." 

I (|uote Congressman A. L. Miller, M. 1)., former health director of Nebraska, 
one of the Delaney conunittee, in the March 24, 1952, Congressional Record: 
'•* * - despite my best efl'orts. and from the evidence before my conunittee, I 
cannot find any public evidence that gave me the impression that the American 
Medical Association, the Dental Association, or several other health agencies, 
now recommending the fluoi'idation of water, had done any original work of their 
own. These groups were simply endorsing each other opinions * * =\ There 
is no scientific basis for recommending immediate acceptance of the projiosals 
to treat the entire population with flu<n-ides. The mass medication of fluorides is 
still in the experimental category * * * the Department of Agriculture has 
recommended that no fluorides be fed to brood sows. Experimental work on rats 
and mice imliciites a lessened mental reaction in i-ats and mice who have had 

In view of the flnal reports from this congressional investigation, the oppo- 
nents believe Supervisor McCarty can present no justittcation of his state- 


ments from any competent authorities on this subject that the merits are all iu 
favor of fluoridation. 

Supervisor McCarty, summarizing our city health director Ellis Sox's state- 
ments said : "There are no findinss based on comiietent evidence that there 
is any deleterious effect on anybody." 

This, too, is false. 

I quote an excerpt of a letter from Carlton F. Urehmer, D. D. S.. 809 North 
High, Sheyboygan, Wis., dated October 21, 1953 : 

"It has been about 7 years since this poison was quietly dropped into Sheboy- 
gan's drinking water. Now people are calling more frequently for prophylaxis, 
and when they come in. and I see the typical brown and white stains I have to 
explain that these are unremovable and caused from the doctored water they 
di'ink. This is a serious disfigurement to those who are interested in their looks. 

"What it does to them, further inside, is a question I leave to them to think 
of. I hope they go home and do think and will, one day, bring the question 
of fluoridation to a vote here." 

Mottled teeth is the first visible sign of fluorine poisoning. 

We, opponents, object to the statements of Dr. Ellis Sox, that fluorine is not an 
acciimulative poison. All standard reference works on fluorine state otherwise. 
Di'. Sox, we believe, can give no verification from qualified scientists in the highly 
specialized field of fluorine for that statement. 

The opponents have repeatedly stated that fluorine is an accumlative poison 
and offer the following verification for that statement : 

The American Veterinary Medical Association, without question, maintains one 
of the outstanding research organizations among medical groups. The following 
was prepared by a committee on nuti-ition. I quote the American "Veterinary 
Medical Journal, June 1943 : "Most of the flucu'lne ingested by animals is depos- 
ited in the bones and teeth, the fluorine content of which increases in proportion 
to the amovmt and duration of the intake. The continued intake of fluorine 
finally leads to a saturation of bones and teeth, so that they are no longer able to 
absorl^ this element from the blood and the tissue fluids. It is then that the 
toxic effects of fluorine become apparent. * * * The fluorine content of the soft 
tissues also will increase, even on very moderate levels of dietary fluoi'ine and 
eventually these minute accumulations may induce degenerative changes in the 
Ividneys and even the liver, adrenal glands, heart, and central nervous system 
* * * * after the symptoms of poison appear, it is too late to do anything." 

Chemical analysis was made of some hearts of heart-death victims in one of 
the guinea pig fluoridated cities. One heart contained 80 parts per million 

I quote the following from an English Dental Journal, Fluorine and Dental 
Caries, by Charles Dillon, D. D. S., I>. D. S., from the Dental Practitioner, Vol. 
111. No. .3. November 1952 : 

"Dr. Dillon, on the basis of data obtained after extensive research into the reac- 
tion of teeth and other bony structures to fluorides, is opposed to fluoridation of 
public water supplies. 

"He demonstrated, that the fluorine content of teeth may run as high as 112 
to 580 parts per million without mottling l)ut with marked decay. The concen- 
tration of fluorine in the teeth of one individual was 340 parts per million while 
the adjacent jawbone contained 800 parts per million. He also was able to 
show that there is a difference in the way different fluorine compounds affect 
the bones. Sodium fluoride is particularly toxic, since it progressively displaces 
the bone phosphate. 

Dr. Dillon states that "the accumulative effect (of fluorides) has not been 
adequately considered, nor can it be assessed withoxit further specific studies 
directed to that end alone." He further concludes that "if the doctor pre- 
scribes a drug that is known to have an accumulative effect, he should always 
set a time limit to his medication just in case the cure becomes worse than the 

Quote the United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1939 : 

"Fluorine interferes with normal calcification of teeth during their formation, 
so that affected teeth, in addition to being usually discolored and ugly in ap- 
pearance, are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life. For this reason, 
it is especially important that fluorine be avoided * * *. Correlation studies be- 
tween the occurrence of mottled enamel and the fluorine concentration of water 
consumed afflicted persons show that this dental disease is always found when 
water containing as little as one part per million fluorine is used continuously 
during the period of formation of the teeth." 


I quote Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary : 

"Fluorosis, a disease coming from the ingestion of too much fluorine, is a 
well established toxicological entity, characterized by increased fragility of 
bones, due to their atrophy, and interestingly enough by enamel defects in teeth, 
exposing them to early decay, i. e., producing the very opposite effect to that 
which fluorine addition to drinking water is to achieve." 

In the face of this data, we demand that Dr. Sox either offer some proof of his 
statement that fluorine is not an accumulative poison from a recognized authority 
in the fleld of fluorine and fluorine poisoning or publicly retract that statement. 

I quote Supervisor McCarty : 

"I feel it is about time that someone would take a stand in defense of decency 
and integrity. I state the attack upon the medical, legal, and upon our health 
services was made in the most violent and equivocal language." 

We demand that this board of supervisors take a stand in defense of decency 
and integrity, obtain a copy of the report which I gave at the March 31 hearing, 
flled with the public utilities committee, and read at this board meeting. Super- 
visor McCarty's statements cannot be reconciled with the report which I read. 

I quote Supervisor McCarty: 

"Now. the medical and dental associations and the officials of our State, local, 
and national health associations have been, in my opinion, the victims of the 
worst kind of abuse and slander, if you will, in this. And I stated at the com- 
mittee hearing that I was a layman and I couldn't conclude whether fluoridation 
is good, bad. or indifferent, and naturally, in reaching a conclusion in that mat- 
ter, I would rely upon doctors, dentists, biochemists, and health officials in the 
Nation and the State and the city and county of San Francisco. And as far as 
T was concerned, I have implicit confidence in the integrity of the medical and 
dental associations and our National. State, and local health bodies and I feel 
that statement not only should have been made, but probably should have been 
made long before this, in the face of the most vitriolic, violent, and unfounded 
attack upon the people who guard' the health of our great country and upon our 
Government and upon our press and upon our newspapers." 

We agree with Supervisor McCarty that "the worst kind of abuse and slander, 
if you will," has been heaped on the victims, but we don't agree with the super- 
visor on the identity of the victims. We contend the opponents are the victims — ■ 
not the proponents — and offer the following proof : 

I quote from a letter by Congressman A. L. Miller, M. D., former public health 
director of Nebraska, dated May 8, 1953 : 

"Many have asked about fluoridation of water in the District of Columbia. I 
did introduce a bill in 19.51 to make this possible. After hearing the experts 
on the subject, I withdraw the bill and apologized to my colleagues for intro- 
ducing the measure. I was misled by the Public Health Service, .iust as many 
are now being misled. The District officials, without authority from Congress, 
proceeded to order fluoridation of water. They should have had legislative 

Secret information uncovered by a west-coast Congressman, which was not 
available to the Delaney congressional investigating committee, can prove to 
anyone of average intelligence that the opi>onents — not the proponents — are 
"the victims of the worst kind of abuse and slander, if you will." 

After studying this secret information, one can easily understand why the 
opponents — composed of laymen, professional people, and the most eminent 
authorities on fluorine in the world, who, usually at great personal sacrifice — 
are tidying diligently and desperately to guard the health of our great country 
and the generations to come — so that there will be generations to come; it is 
easy to understand why the opponents, who have become "the victims of the 
worst kind of and slander, if you will" using Supervisor McCarty's words, 
are the targets of the most vitriolic, violent and unfounded attacks from those 
who have been entrusted to guard the health of our great country, among them 
Supervisor McCarty. 

Furthermore, this secret information records the words of the top echelon 
fluoridators. including our United States Surgeon General Leonard Scheele, as 
they plotted against the health, well-being, yes, the very lives of our American 
people and against our constitutional freedoms. This information explains in 
detail, the blueprint for misinforming and deceiving our citizens, for preventing 
the truth from being disseminated, for taking care of the opposition — as Super- 
visor McCarty took care of us — and for putting over fluoridation. The fluorida- 
tors execute the blueprint quite well. 


I quote excerpts from the fourth anuual <'onfereuce. State dental directors, 
with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, Federal Security 
Building, Washington, D. C, June 6-8, 1951 : 

Francis Bull, D. D. S., State dental director of Wisconsin, addressing the 
conference stated : 

"I don't know why they [meaning the antifluoridators] didn't include a let- 
ter from two-thirds of the deans of dental schools and universities saying that 
fluoridation is rat poison and should not be used. * * * We are living down 
a lot of past history a lot of us helped create. These fellows can take the state- 
ments of the American Dental Association or the United States Public Health 
Service or the deans of dental schools or research workers * * * and they can 
prove to you that we are absolutely crazy for even thinking about fluoridation 
* * * there is no way of avoiding it * * * Do not tell the peoi)le that you 
are just starting on the fluoridation program in order to promote something 
else. * * * Sure fluoridation is wasteful, but unfortunately we do not know 
of any other way of doing — them." And "When tliey take us at our own word 
they make awful liars out of us." 

Doing them. Could it be the deliberate sabotage of the mentality or the setup 
for the quick liquidation of our people Dr. Bull referred to as "doing them"? 

Mr. James Rorty, famous food investigator, thoroughly investigated this 
great controversy. I quote from his article. The Truth About Fluoridation, 
printed in the June 29. 1953, Freeman. "But the intolerance of the flu(n-idators 
and their reckless slander of their opponents * * * all this is disturbing, to say 
the least." 

We feel it is obvious, from the preceding infv>rmation, that the opponents — 
not the proponents — have been "the victims of the worst kind of abuse and 
slander, if you will." 

We demand that Supervisor McCarty correct his misquotes and errors, and 
apologize for his slanted and biased summary of the opposition and his unfounded 
and unwarranted attacks on us. 

We also protest Dr. Ellis Sox being given the opportunity at the April 7 hearing 
to rei^at his previous views that fluoridation is safe and beneficial. He appeai'ed, 
not as an unbiased and competent authority on fluoridation, but as a vigorous 
proponent. Supervisor McCarty announced at the April 5 boax'd meeting he 
would permit no one to speak who had already spoken on the measure. 
I quote Supervisor Carberry : 

"The statement which I made to the opponents the other day in committee 
meeting was well-intended, respecting the right of any minority to assert itself 
and get a fair hearing before any board committee and before the board itself." 
We now petition this board of supervisors to grant us a fair hearing, at least 
1^2 hours for each side, before the board — not in committee. We want no recur- 
rence of the public utilities committee hearing and no opportunity for any super- 
visor to report back to the board his "version" of the opposition. Sacramento 
City Council allowed 2 hours and 15 minutes for each side, then unanimously 
rejected fluoridation — the second time that council had unanimously rejected 
this scheme. 

We contend the so-called mandate of the people should no longer be binding 
upon this board of supervisors. We are prepared to compile a well-documented 
reiwrt, which, we feel, will prove those contentions— that fluoridation was ))ut 
over in this city by dishonest, treacherous, and un-American methods from the 
very beginning, even to the election in which our citizens voted for fluoridation. 
They did so, no doubt, due to the fraudulent, erroneous, and misleading state- 
ments on our ballot arguments for fluoridation. Those ballot arguments for 
fluoridation were approved by three supervisors — Mead, McMurray, and 

We brought to the attention of that board of siipervisors the fact that error 
did appear on the ballot. This was simple to prove. I quote from our ballot 
argument for fluoridation : 

"6. Among those strongl.v urging the adoption of water fluoridation are those 
groups dedicated to the health and well-being of the community — American 
Medical Association." 

We had in our possession tw<» letters from AMA. which refuted this statement. 
We asked that the error be corrected or the proposition be withdrawn. Super- 
visor Fazackerly, who introduced the ordinance, quickly referred it to judiciary 
committee after election, so nothing could be done about it and the citizens 
would vote with fraudulent, erroneous, and misleading statements to sruide 
them. These same ballot arguments were printed in a newspaper. 


Ever since election, the supervisors have stated they can do nothing about it 
as it is a mandate of the people. 

The l)<)iir(l of supervisor.s (leliborately permitted the people to vote on the issue 
iiftei- th(> pr(»of had been presented that error did exist on the ballot. I say this 
is an irre^Milarity in the election and the people are not responsible for voting in 
fluoridation, 'liiey never were permitted to have correct information on the 

As a matter of fact, the board voted to place it on the l)allot after they had 
twice passed the ordinance for fluoridation. They did this, perhaps, because I 
brought to their attention tlie fact that fluoridation is medication and clearly 
stated as such in the April 1.", 10r>l, issue of California's Health, our State 
I >ei)artnient of rultlic Health Kulletin, in which fluoridation is described as a 
"preventive theraiieutic agent" — clearly medication. The final report of the 
congressional coniniittee ( 1!)."2 i .stated fluoridation is "'mass medication without 
parallel in tlie history of niedicine," and "still in the experimental categoi-y." 
Yet. the proponents continue to state, erroneously, that fluoridation is not medi- 

When the board passed the ordinance the second time, it did so because our 
assistant director of public healtb, Dr. Erwin Sage, misinformed them when he 
stated fluoridation is not medication. The board depended solely upon Dr. Sage's 

Supervisor Mancuso. chairman of the judiciary committee, had stated if fluori- 
dation is medication, every supervisor knows it is unconstitutional because it 
woulil violate freeilom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 
States. Medication (compulsory) is a violation of the religious beliefs of some 
religious denominations. 

Shortly thereafter we iiresented them witli the information of the California 
Health Bulletin which describes fluoridation as medication. Supervisor Marvin 
Lewis quoted from tbat bulletin to the board and said every supervisor knows 
now tbat fluoridation is medication and unconstitutional and if it is forced on 
the ballot, they do so knowing it is illegal and unconstitutional. The supervisors 
did it anyway. 

tinder these circumstances, we feel the fault is one of the city fathers, not the 
fault of the voters. Every supervisor should be acquainted with the full facts 
before voting to extend the program. 

We believe, in the interest of fair play, honesty, and integrity, this board of 
supervisors has no choice but to grant the hearing and give the opponents the 
opi)ortunity to correct the mis(iuotes and the errors and publicly defend our cause 
against the unfounded and luiwarranted attacks by Supervisor McCarty. 
^'ery truly yours, 

GOLDA Franzktv. 

Attention of the Interstate and Forei<iii Commerce Committee to 
the folloAvino; comment re<«;ardinfj the preceding- letter : I reqnested 
that tliis letter be read to the members of the board of supervisors. 
The resnlt — the board took more time preventing the letter from 
being read than it vvonld have taken to read orally as requested. No 
action was taken on my request for the privilege of the floor. 

San Francisco, Calif., April Ji), 19-j.'i. 
Hon, George Christopher. 

President, Board of S!)ipc)-risors, 

Sati Fraucisco, Calif. 

Dear Sir : During the April 12, liri4, boar<l of supervisors' meeting, the deputy 
city attorney, in answer to Super\isoi- P.yron Arnold's question, stated the 
board of supervisor's could stop the fluoridation program if it was shown that, 
instead of being a measure to protect the public health, it had become a pro- 
gram which is detrimental to public health. 

Enclosed is a letter from a competent medical doctor practicing in this city, 
a physician and surgeon with over .")0 years' experience, which states one of his 
patients has been greatly harmed by using the fluoridated water. There are 
many others, but one case is sufficient. 

Notice the postscript, please. Dr. Gould's office is not supposed to be in a 
fluoridated area, but Mr. George I'racy. snijerintendent of tbe water company, 
verified for me the fact that the fluorides bad "seeped" to other parts of the 
water system — not just the sections which were supposed to receive fluorides. 


We opponents, therefore, respectfully request that the fluoridation program 
be stopped quickly, before more damage is done to citizens of this city. 
Very truly yours, 

GoLDA Feanzen. 

The April 19 letter was read at the board meeting. The ordinance 
was passed without comment, by unanimous vote. The opponents 
were given no opportunity to correct the misquotes or inaccuracies. 

I now quote excerpts from a report which I had prepared to use, 
had I been given the privilege of the floor at the April 12 meeting of 
the board of supervisors : 

The information which I shall use, explains why we feel that Supervisor 
McCarty, rather than conducting a fair hearing — then giving an impartial, 
unbiased report to the board of supervisors on the opposition — chose to give a 
slanted, inadequate report with misquotes and errors. 

I read from the Third Report, Un-American Activities in California, 1947, 
page 79. "Sponsors of the California Labor School included * * * Francis 
McCarty, hearing commissioner for OPA." 

The California Labor School, I am informed, has been cited by the United 
States Attorney General as a subversive organization. 

I read from the Fourth Report, Un-American Activities in California, 1948, 
Communist Front Activities, page 172. "Haakon M. Chevalier, accompanied by 
his attorney, Francis McCarty, appeared and testified before the committee 
at its Oakland hearings, November 6, 1947. While his memory was apparently 
faulty in many respects, he was able to recall some of his affiliations in Com- 
munist-fronts and Communist activities." 

If I were a Red, pink, or fellow traveler, I would never be unwise enough to 
choose a loyal American for my attorney. By the same token if I were a loyal 
American, I would never be foolish enough to choose a Red, pink, or fellow 
traveler for my attorney, if I knew it. Patriotism and communism are dia- 
metrically opposed. 

I am informed that Supervisor McCarty is that same Francis McCarty. He 
lacked the skill to detect communism in operation in the San Francisco Labor 
School. Would he be any more skillful in detecting communism in action in 

We submit the following information to show just and logical 
reasons for our increasing alarm and determination to stop this 
hellish and un-American scheme: 

United States Surgeon General Leonard Scheele, greeting the 
fourth Annual Conference, State Dental Directors, with the Public 
Health Service and Children's Bureau, Federal Security Building, 
Washington, D. C, June 6-8, 1951, said : 

I have just come back from the World Health Assembly * * * Obviously, one 
of the biggest things facing us is the catalyzing of a real national program of 
water fluoridation. 

Did Francis Bull, D. D. S., State Dental Director of Wisconsin, an 
avid fluoridator, expose the political scheme when he told the con- 
ference : 

Do not tell the people that you are just starting on the fluoridation program 
in order to promote something else * * * Sure, fluoridation is wasteful, but, 
unfortunately, we do not know of any other way of doing * * * them. 

Doing * * * them — doing * * * them. After spending over 3 
years in the trenches opposing this scheme, perhaps I can throw 
a little light on those words "doing * * * them." What is the "some- 
thing else" Dr. Bull referred to? Could it be the deliberate sabotage 
of the mentality, or the quick liquidation of our people? ^ Could such 
a program be honestly termed as anything but chemical rape or 
chemical warfare? 


I quote Harold D. Lasswell, The Garrison State, from the American 
Journal of Sociology, 194:1 : 

Still another factor darkens the forecast for the bottom layers of the popula- 
tion in the future trarrison state. If recent advances in pharmacology continue, 
as we may anticipate, physical means of controlling response can replace sym- 
bolic methods. Tills refers to the use of drugs, not only for temporary orgies of 
energy on the part of frontline fighters, but in order to deaden the critical func- 
tion of all who are not held in esteem by the ruling state. 

Perhaps we read it and payed little attention. 

Gentlemen, if an intruder forced his way into your home, attacked 
your daughter and forced his way into her body, would you stand 
idly by and permit this to happen, or would you attempt to stop it? 
I am certain you will agree that any courageous and honorable father 
would protect his home and family against any intruder or attacker. 
If the father killed the attacker in attempting to protect his family, 
I believe you will also agree that no honest or honorable jury would 
ever convict that father, rather, they would commend him. I believe 
it would make no difference to you if that would-be rapist were an 
ofKcial from the public health departments, the medical associations, 
the dental associations, clubs, organizations, your family physician, or 
3'Our best friend — you would believe he had gone mad and would 
attempt to stop him, even if it meant killing him. His position and 
identity would mean nothing to you at that moment; you would 
judge alone by his actions, and rightly so. 

Now, suppose that instead of using a door or window for entry, an 
intruder used the public water mains for forcing his way into your 
home and the mouth and skin for forcing his way into the body. In 
trying to find a word which will most adequately and accurately de- 
scribe what we feel is happening by injecting our public water sup- 
plies with this most violent poison to all living tissues — flourine — we 
can find no better word than rape. Perhaps that w^ord is technically 
incorrect, but some high-sounding opinion from a so-called authority 
would not change that feeling. 

I am certain that you are aware, just as we are, that prisoners in a 
penitentiary cannot be used for medical experimentation against their 
wills — at least, not legally. Fluoridation is medical experimenta- 
tion — and defined as such by the Delaney committee. Wliy has there 
been no invocation of the laws which protect us from medical experi- 
mentation against our will. 

I can think of no other way to invade and sabotage the homes and 
bodies of trusting, unsuspecting, or protesting citizens except through 
the public water supplies, can you'^ Is this not communism, totali- 
tarianism, pure and simple, mass medication or mass treatment 
through force, deceit, or coercion with total disregard of the dignity 
of the individual or his health or life? 

Mr. George Pracy, superintendent of the San Francisco Water Co., 
recently stated, that when the extension of the fluoridation program 
in San Francisco is completed, the water supplies of the Peninsula 
cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, San Carlos, Belmont, Millbrae, 
Hillsborough, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Colma, Sharp Park, 
Vallemar, Pacific Manor, Broadmoor, and some smaller unincorpo- 
rated areas will also be fluoridated. Furthermore, Mr. Pracy stated 
that the city government of San Francisco does not intend to obtain 
permission from those city governments or by a vote of the people 


before poisoning' their water supplies with fluorides. San Carlos 
voted against fluoridation 2 years ago. The most recent elections in 
California on this issue resulted in Livermore rejecting fluoridation 
and Ukiah also rejecting by a landslide. As George Heard, D. D. S., 
stated : 

It is hellish and iin-Aiuerican to put poison in city water supplies and force 
citizens to drink it. 

Here is an example of poisoning by secrecy and force. 

Why has the United States Public Health Service opposed the use 
of bottled water, tablets, and all alternatives to using the common 
water supplies for dispensing this violent poison when at least six 
other methods are available ? A year's supply of fluorides for a fam- 
ily of 4 costs but 25 cents. Druggists can dispense fluorides by pre- 
scription, for each individual in controlled dosage, something which 
is utterly impossible if dispensed through the public water supply. 

Let us reexamine Dr. Bull's statement : 

Sure, fluoridation is wasteful — liut, unfortunately, we do not know of any 
other way of doing * * * them. 

Why has there been a complete lack of interest by the United States 
Public Health Service and the American Medical Association to start 
any reliable, scientific, verifiable, or repeatable medical investigation 
of the toxic effects of ingesting water containing sodium fluoride? 
And why is all such published research discredited or smeared ? Why 
has there been complete silence in all United States Public Health 
Service "scientific" literature and news items regarding the "brain- 
washing" aspects of sodium fluoride ? 

I quote from the Shreveport Journal, Shreveport, La., October 5, 
1953 : 

Dr. Joe D. Nichols, newly elected president of the Tri-State Medical Society, 
said Sunday in a radio interview here, that he suspected Communist agents 
of being behind the move to put inorganic fluorine in municipal water systems. 
Nichols said tliat endorsement of the fluoridation program by reputable organi- 
zations is merely chain reaction. The Lions endorse it, then the Rotary, then 
the Jaycees, and so on in every community, because they have heard that the 
others have done it. Communist agents, I have heard, have inflltrated the 
United States Public Health Service. The United States Public Health Service 
has mothered this thing and a lot of good doctors have been dui>ed into endors- 
ing it. He added that if Shreveport puts fluorine in its drinking water, he 
would "either skip the town or bring my own jug of water with me." 

That physician dares to tell the truth, but it reaches so few of our 

I quote from H. M. Greene, M, D., from The Reminder of our Na- 
tional Heritage, 

Dangers of poison in artificial fluoridation by government are the danger in 
mass medication by Soviet communism. We require license for doctors, nurses, 
and druggists to give poison drugs. But, artificial fliioridation, for which there 
is no antidote, is put in drinking water for children and agents of Malenkov, 
now at liberty in the United States, can give poison to our children. 

Perhaps the reason Dictator Ana Pauker was deposed in Red Ru- 
mania was because she "let two cats out of the bag" when she boasted 
to Princess Ileana of Rumania just how the United States is to be 
taken over. Princess Ileana's book, I Live Again, quotes Ana Pauker 
as stating that the take-over will be accomplished by taking over 
(note — not destroying) of the utilities and by poisoning the water 
supplies. Could she not be questioned concerning this statement ? 


Quoting from the Los Angeles Times. January 7, 195-1 : 

Six of niue public utility employees who appeared yesterday before tbe State 
senate fact-flndingr committee on un-American activities here refused to answer 
questions about Communist Party aflBliation on constitutional grounds. 

Tlie Daily Palo Alto Times, December -21, 1953, recorded as fol- 
lows : 

Among- those receiving the Stalin Peace Prize was Prof. Singh Sokhey, mem- 
ber of the Indian Parliament and Chairman of the World Health Organization's 
Plague Committee. 

AVould Prof. Sokhey have received that Communist award if he 
had not been furthering the cause of Soviet communism? I think 
not. And I understand our United States Public Health Service 
cooperates with the World Health Organization. 

Quoting from the Springfield Union, February 24, 1954: 

Asks help for bills against fluoridation, Representative Gray's measures to 
be heard in Boston next Tuesday. Mr. Gray was a member of the fluoridation 
study commission which looked into the question last year. * * * "We know for 
sure," Mr. Gray said, "that whoever the men, the powers, behind the fluoridation 
scheme are, a number of them are operating worldwide." He says he has evi- 
dence to prove that numbers of citizens of Australia, England, Germany, New 
Zealand, and Scotland "are fighting the fluoridation scheme as hard as the citi- 
zens of Massachusetts and the rest of the United States are fighting it. * * * 
Certainly," he said, "all those people don't fear and fight without cause, particu- 
larly those who liave been close enough to the Red menace to recognize the 
danger signs." 

A reading of Dr. Leo Spira's works indicate that medical personnel 
rarely are able to recognize the effects of trace poisons, including 
fluorides, and are prone to cover up — blaming other causes. 

Only those we trust implicitly can betray us. Three whole profes- 
sions — the medical, dental, and public health — stand indicted, be- 
cause the few who control those organizations are, we feel, either un- 
informed, misinformed, dishonest, or subversive. Into which cate- 
gory do they belong? 

The several hundred thousand people living in the guinea pig cities 
of (xrand Ka]uds, Mich.. Newburgli, X. Y., and Sheboygan, Wis., can 
answer for all time what really happens when human beings ingest 
a steady dose of sodium fluoridated water for a number of years. We 
have the qualified and honorable scientists necessary to conduct such 
an investigation — Dr. Leo Spira, Dr. Paul Manning, Dr. Charles 
Brusch, Dr. Alfred Taylor, Prof. H. V. Smith, and Dr. Margaret 
Smith, from the University of Arizona, and others. 

The citizens and taxpayers of this Nation, I am certain, want such 
an investigation, though it may cost millions of dollars. What is 
money in comparison to the health, life, or security of the Nation? 

To date, a half dozen or so decisions favoring fluoridation and one 
against, have been given. 

Judge James U. Galloway, of the district court of Shreveport, La., 
ruled fluoridation illegal, stating tooth decay is not a matter of 
public health, but one of individual concern. 

A sweeping decision favoring fluoridation, was handed down Octo- 
ber 22, 1953, by Judge Joseph A. Artl, of the common pleas court of 
Cleveland. Judge Artl ruled that a — 

person's constitutional right to treat his health as he deems best, and of parents 
to raise their children as they deem best and to be free from medical experimenta- 
tion and to exercise freedom of religion are all subordinated to the common good. 
That children's dental health is properly a providence of community laws. 


Does this sound like the decision from a judge of the United States 
of America — or a totalitarian America ? 

That decision means : We have just abolished the Constitution of the 
United States ; all the divine rights of free men, as clearly stated in 
our Declaration of Independence, our God-given Constitution with 
the Bill of Eights — all the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, 
the right to say what is done to one's own body, the right to worship 
God as one chooses — all this is destroyed now. From now one, we have 
no right to a body as healthy as God bestowed, no right to a brain 
undimmed and unimpaired, no right to bring forth children as healthy 
and intelligent as the Creator intended. We are setting up classes in 
disrespect of the American form of government — a ruling class and a 
slave class. Sufficient years of forced feeding of sodium fluorides and 
the change is complete — moronic, atheistic slaves, the direct result of 
sodium fluoridation and ruled by a superior, intelligent few. Even 
our unborn children cannot escape this direct assault. 

Fantastic, unbelievable, impossible, you say ? Think again. 

The only time anyone must legally submit to compulsory medica- 
tion, under our American fomi of government, is when there is the 
danger of an epidemic or emergency of a contagious or infectious 
disease. Dental caries are not now, and never can be, honestly classi- 
fied as contagious or infectious. 

I quote from the San Francisco Examiner, February 27, 1954 : 

Brown O. K.'s fluorides. Municipal water districts may add fluorides to their 
water supplies to protect the health of consumers. Attorney General Edmund G. 
Brown ruled yesterday. Approval of the State board of health is required, 
however, Brown said in an opinion requested by Assemblyman Francis Dunn, 
Jr.. of Oakland. Districts and their employees are free from legal liability in 
the practice unless negligence is involved, he said. The opinion held that there 
was no need for an amendment to the health and safety code for i>ermission to 
add fluorides. 

Quoting from the Oakland Tribune, April 22, 1954, Mr. Louis J. 
Breuner, president of the board of the East Bay Municipal Utility 
District, stated: 

We feel the attorney general's opinion is an opinion of the law, but it wouldn't 
hold up in court. It does not take us off the hook. 

Section 20703 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of Cali- 
fornia, defines fluorides soluble in water as poison. 

Section 20751 makes it unlawful to vend, sell, give away, or furnish, 
either directly or indirectly, any poison enumerated in section 20703 
witliout a poison label. 

Section 26286.5 forbids the advertisement of a drug or device repre- 
sented to have effect on dental caries. 

San Francisco's city attorney, Dion Holm, ruled fluoridation legal. 

A Massachusetts brewery, prosecuted under the Federal Food, Drug 
and Cosmetic Act, criminal proceedings, was fined $100,000 for having 
a small amount of fluoride in its beer. The court nded fluorine a non- 
nutritive, deleterious substance; the quantity was irrelevant. 

The law does not apply to cities fluoridating, the Federal Secm'ity 
Agency ruled. 

"Wliat good is Congress — or the State legislatures — if the laws that 
they pass to protect us are abolished by those who, perhaps, have other 


We need a law which specifically prohibits the poisoning of our wa- 
ter supplies witli fluorides and one which will protect citizens from 
medical or surgical experimentation without their written consent. 

Quoting f roVn the Sail Francisco News, February 23, 1954 : 

St. Paul, Minn. — The President of tlie American Dental Association said todaj 
the use of fluoridated water has cut the rate of dental decay among children by 
as much as 65 percent. Dr. Leslie Fitzgerald of Dubuque, Iowa, told 5,000 dele- 
gates to the Minnesota Dental Association convention here that 910 American 
conmiunities. with populations totaling nearly 17 million, now add fluorides to 
their drinking water * * *. The evidence continues to demonstrate that fluo- 
ridation will iiave no untoward effect on the general health and will signiflcantly 
improve health through the reduction of dental decay. 

Quoting Francis Bull, D. D. S., from his address at their convention : 

When they take us at our own word they make awful liars out of us. 

Fortunately, ever-increasing numbers of citizens are learning the 
truth — that the proponents are, by their own words "awful liars" and 
protect themselves in the poisoned cities by purchasing unpoisoned 
bottled water. 

I have stated repeatedly — and I reiterate — that anyone who has any- 
thing to do for fluoridation, is displaying a treacherous attitude for 
one of four reasons — either because he is uninformed, misinformed, 
dishonest, or subversive. Unquestionably, practically everything in 
this Nation is infiltrated by Communists, subversives, and their dupes 
or tools. 

Seventeen million Americans, more or less, at the mercy of Soviet 
Communists. Invasion and sabotage, by remote control, tlirough the 
water mains. What could be more clever or effective ? Our enemies 
take over — city by city. 

I know that fluoridation is a Communist scheme — frankly, the mas- 
ter plan — but I cannot prove it, for those who have informed me, can- 
not testify — they would be liquidated, if they did. I believe you are 
in a position to prove it, however, by having Princess Ileana and 
others testify under oath. 

The catalyzing of water fluoridation is being successful and millions 
of American are being poisoned. I also believe that a Federal law 
should be quickly passed to prohibit this scheme, in order to avert 
further diseasing and perhaps killings of our innocent and protesting 
citizens — and to prevent the complete loss of faith in this administra- 
tion which so many are experiencing. 

Enlightened and aroused citizens are demanding that his hellish 
and un-American program be stopped — recent examples of what is 
taking place on the fluoridation battlefront, as reported from La- 
Crosse, Wis., April ft, 1954, fluoridation was rejected by a 10,623 to 
2,356 vote. Cincinnati rejected by 20,000 votes, and the city councils 
of Akron, Ohio, and Fort Worth, Tex., deemed it advisable to rescind 
their former action to fluoridate. 

To you, gentlemen, I throw the torch — the torch of divine justice, 
individual dignity and liberty under law — our light to the rest of the 
world, the hope of all mankind. Be yours and hold it high and you 
will help to usher in the dawn of the new age — peace on earth, good 
will to men. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for this privilege and honor. I leave our 
constitutional Republic under your loyal protection, now that we have 
given you the facts. 

49391—54 8 


The Chairman. Mrs. Fraiizen, we appreciate your having come a 
long distance to present yonr views to this committee. We realize 
that you have spoken with sincerity and that you are convinced as to 
the right of your cause or you would not have come as far as you 
have and you would not have spoken with the positiveness that you 
have. We appreciate your having been here, and assure you that your 
statement will be given our very careful consideration. 

Mrs. FrxXnzen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I forgot to state that there are approximately, I would say, 100,000 
people — there were 90,000 votes against it in San Francisco and they 
had but one side, and that was the ])ro side. 

I am speaking here not representing the committee, but thousands 
of people who have asked me to come down and represent them, as 
they feel it, and fight it out on our battlefront. 

The Chairman. I wish they could have been here and heard you, 
and the manner in which you have spoken in their behalf. 

Mrs. Franzen, Thank you. 


Miss Van de Vere. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, thank you for 
giving me this privilege of coming here to speak my little piece. I 
will make it as brief as possible. 

I am a laboratory research scientist, trained at the College of Physi- 
cians and Surgeons; refresher course at Harvard, Thonidyke, Mass. 
I have been doing anaphylaxis research for Prof. Hanz Zinsser, pro- 
fessor of Bacteriology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, and later 
at Harvard. 

I am a registered bacteriologist. New York State. By civil-service 
examination I was appointed research bacteriologist and assistant in 
pathology. New York Health Department; also by civil-service exam- 
ination appointed microbiologist, serologist, Hartford State Health 
Department; member of the American Public Health Association; 
Connecticut Public Health Association; World Health Organization; 
American Association for the Advancement of Science. I am co- 
author of a cancer research article published in the New York State 
Medical Journal, have done fluoridation research with Prof. I. M. 
Adler at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. 

Dr. William H. Park, clirector of public health laboratories. New 
York City, advised me as to the shortest method of attaining my ob- 
jective. He said, "If you do not ever intend to practice medicine, but 
want to do research work exclusively, you will lose a good many years 
on academic studies which will in no way train you for the work you 
want to do. There are plenty of doctors but not enough research 
workers. You can get special courses in various laboratory techniques 
which you will need, at the College of Physicians and Surgeons." I 
was accepted as a special student and took all the laboratory courses. 
More recently I completed a refresher course in hematology (blood 
studies) at Thorndike Memorial (Harvard). I passed a civil-service 
examination for research bacteriologist and I was the only woman 
who passed the examination in histology. My marks were about 90. 


I did laboratory research work with Drs. I. M. Adler and M. J. Sitten- 
field at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We had just com- 
pleted our fluoride research work when I was appointed by the Civil 
Service Commission as bacteriologist, etc. Later I became a regis- 
tered bacteriologist by the New York State Board of Health. For 
many years I did laboratory research and routine laboratory tests in 
private laboratories and hospitals. My duties included bacteriology- 
serology-biochemistry-clinical pathology, and tissue work. An article 
in the New York Medical Journal (about spring 1932) reports a 
study in cancer research by Dr. George Wyetli and I am coauthor. 

Through a civil-service examination I was appointed as microbiol- 
ogist-serologist for the Connecticut State Health Department. I left 
there when I became ill. I am recovering from a bus crash injury. 
I am a member of the American Public Health Association, (Con- 
necticut Public Health Association, World Health Organization, 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Society 
American Bacteriologists. I keep abreast of current achievements 
in laboratory research by attending nearlj^ all scientific meetings. 

I have written a textbook on fluoridation for which I have had re- 
quests from dental colleges. My book is not yet published. It is in 
the Library of Congress. 

I submitted two antifluoridation bills in the Connecticut Legislature 
last year which I believe helped defeat the profluoridation bills. 

Our prime purposes for this research work was an attempt to find a 
substance which might retard the onset of arteriosclerosis (hardening 
of the arteries) . We had tried many reagents, with no success. Fin- 
ally we thought that perhaps a very weak solution of sodium fluoride 
might be effective since we know the specific affinity of fluorine for 
calcium, inasmuch as arteriosclerosis is characterized by calcium de- 
posits on the internal walls of blood vessels, we proceeded as follows : 
For 30 days animals were fattened and observed by routine tests. 
Then the experiment began. White rats, II/2 to 2 years of age. Food : 
cracked corn, oats, beef suet. Distilled water for controls. Fluori- 
dated water contained sodium fluoride. 10 parts per million, 5 part^ 
per million, and 1 part per million. Period of experiment up to 9 
months. Inverted bottles with medicine droppers, rubber tubing with 
pinchcocks insured consumption and no waste. Each day, amount 
of food and water consumed was measured and recorded. Daily 
bloodsmears (by snipping end of rats' tails) and blood coagulation 
time were checked. Those rats which lived the longest, about 7 to 9 
months, showed marked emaciation; loss of hair; calcareous deposits 
in aorta, and generalized hardening of blood vessels; hemorrhagic 
areas in liver, long bones (femur) were chalky in appearance; bone 
marrow contained fluoride crystals, kidneys showed cloudy swelling ; 
bloodsmears showed increased polymorphs (white cells) and bloocl 
clotting time increased as compared with control rats' blood — (dis- 
tilled water) and some few developed long chalky tusks. Control 
animals, sacrificed — showed no pathology except varying degrees of 

Observation : Instead of retarding onset of arteriosclerosis it seemed 

to be accelerated. Repeated experiments corroborated these findings. 

In the next set of experiments with white rats which had cancer 

transplants (from Dr. Woglam and Francis Carter Wood of Columbia 


University) we used distilled water for control animals, and fluori- 
dated water, containing 10 parts per million, 5 parts per million, and 
1 part per million, sodium fluoride on the experimental batch. Results 
showed more rapid growth of neoplasm (cancer) in the rats which 
drank the fluoridated water in all dilutions; with metastasis more 
generalized. Testicular cancer grew most rapidly, the intraperito- 
neal-x growth was not as fast. Cancerous growth developed faster 
and larger than in the control rats which drank distilled water. Some 
of the rats which drank fluoridated water died after 2 months; others 
developed marked emaciation until death. 

Conclusion : 

Experiment I. Onset of arteriosclerosis was hastened by ingestion 
of sodium fluoride; blood-clotting time was prolonged. 

Experiment II. Cancer growth was accelerated by ingestion of sodi- 
um fluoride. 


Francis Heyroth, M. D., December 1952, Journal APHA : 

Toxieological evidence in the fluoridation of public water supplies : "Any toxic 
hazard that may be associated with fluoridation could he only tliat of the cumu- 
lative action of small amounts taken daily over a long period of time. Variations 
in susceptibility would make hazardous any attempt to predict the maximum 
safe human intake. Like other biological functions, the ability to store or 
excrete fluorides may be expected to vary from individual to individual. 

M. F. Schafer, M. D., public health officer, Colorado Springs, Colo. : 

In order to prevent dental fluorosis we are advising that our water be diluted 
.50 percent with nonfluodidated water which is available at our dairies. (.Tanuary 
14, 1952, communication.) 

Geo. S. Bratton, impact of municipal Avater fluoridation on foods 
and beverages, April 1953 : 

It is the responsibility of the nutritionist to help build good teeth : it is the 
responsibility of the dentist to help prevent dental decay, but it is dt finitely not 
the duty of the water companies to practice preventive medicine or dentistry. 
*or nutrition. Water containing 1 part per million, after boiling may contain 
as much as 35 parts per million or more of fluorides. 

Fred S. McKay, D. D. S., Colorado Springs : 

The study of mottled enamel — summary and conclusions : The structure of 
the enamel is determined only during the period of calcification and not there- 
after (up to about age 8 years). Fish is one of the richest sources of natural 
fluoride. It is, therefore, a matter of good nutrition and preventive dentistry 
and medicine to include fish in the diets of all children up to 8 or 10 years 
of age. Fluorine is present in a great many foods, but fish and tea contain the 
largest amount. The usual foods eaten daily supply about 0.3 to 0.9 milligrams 
fiuoride (McClure). 

(Fluoridation has never been determined as a necessary element in 
human nutrition.) 
H. Trendley Dean (private communication) : 

Reliable evidence must be available that the proposed fluoridating ag^jc will 
not be injurious to health even when ingested as part of the daily diet over a 
period of many years. With chemical additives to food on the increase, the im- 
portance of that criterion cannot be overemphasized. (Journal ADA, February 


Zoller Dental Clinic, University of Chicago : 

Article deals with germ-free technique. There is no dental decay in the ab- 
sence of mierobic life — 

in other words, a clean mouth is the answer to prevention of dental 

Practicing dentists' viewpoint on fluoridation : 

Many dentists regard fluoridation with skepticism, opposition, and indilfer- 
ence. Dietary and nutritional habits, proper use of toothbrush, reduction in 
intake of refined starches and sugars have been demonstrated to be good pre- 
ventive methods which can be recommended to patients. These are in the same 
category as fluoridation of municipal water supplies. 

F. A. Bull, D. D. S., Madison, Wis. : 

Pluoridation of communal water supply does not solve the problem of dental 
decay ; nothing could be further from the truth. It will take 14 years before 
dental caries reduction is brought about in children, and even after fluoridation 
has been carried on for a long time, one-third of dental caries (dental decay) 
will still exist. It is by no means a complete answer to the dental health 

Cost of fluoridation of the Hartford Metropolitan District Water 
Commission will be about a quarter-million dollars. In the fourth 
annual conference, Dental and Public Health, Washington, D. C, 
"Cost is about $50 per capita." Hazard to operator : He must wear 
mask, goggles, breathing apparatus, dust collector, air filter, rubber 
gloves, rubber apron, and so forth. No insurance company will give 
coverage. Nobody will take responsibility for personal injury or 
death. Health department says, "We onl}' recommend it." The water 
company says, "We are only acting as agents, instructed to add the 
fluoride chemical." 

Report of ad hoc committee on fluoridation of water supplies. Na- 
tional Research Council, Washington, D. C. An impartial report pre- 
sented for professional, governmental, and civil groups who must 
make decisions for their communities : 

Summary and conclusions: 

The most sensitive indication in interference with normal calcification of 
teeth, and is esthetically undesirable. The level of fluoride concentration in 
drinking water which causes this varies with the individual susceptibility and 
with the amount of water consumed. How much reduction in dental decay will 
vary with local conditions. 

About one-half of the population of the United States lives in small 
villages and rural areas and have no communal water. 
Harold Hodges — Rochester : 

Other ways to use fluorides for dental caries: Topical applications to teeth, 
tooth pastes, and powders, mouthwash, fluoride chewing gum, vitamins with 
fluorine. A possible future danger of mottled teeth lies in overenthusiasm to 
prevent dental caries — people will take fluoride tablets, and they will eat foods 
which have a high natural fluoride content, such as fish and tea. Conclusions : 
Persons drinking communal water supplies containing about 1 part per million 
of fluorine and by eating foods which contain fluorine may bring about a fluorine 
level, sufficient to cause mottled teeth. 

H. V. Smith, Arizona : 

Evidence strongly indicates that any water with a fluorine content of 0.9 parts 
per million or over is dangerous from the standpoint of probable damage to teeth. 

Dr. Badger, New Mexico : 

Mottled enamel in children drinking water containing 0.9 parts per million 
fluorine. To cover up mottled teeth, a dentist can make porcelain jackets, crowns, 
or even full dentures may be required. 


In St. David, Ariz., most natives at age 24 years wear full dentures. 
Natural flnoride in water contains less than 1 part per million fluoride. 

American Medical Association: Testimony under oath, congres- 
sional investigation, 1952 : 

American Medical Association does not urge or recommend fluoridation of 
public water supplies. 

Xewburgh, X. Y.. experiment station, Dr. David Ast, dental 
surgeon : 

Final conclusions cannot he made at this time. It will require an additional 
10 years of study to determine cumulative effects of fluorides in the body. 

Grand Rapids, Mich. : 

A report from the United States Public Health Service, Bureau of Vital Sta- 
tistics : After 4 years fluoridation of public water supplies, deaths increased 
from heart disease, almost 100 percent, deaths increased from kidney disease, 50 
percent, deaths increased from brain diseases 50 percent. 

Tlie population increased 8 percent. Does this sound like a recom- 
mendation for fluoridation ? 

J. C. Muhler and W. G. Schafer, department of chemistry and 
School of Dentistry, Indiana University : 

Decreased thyroid activity is related to increased carles susceptibility in the 
rat. Dessicated thyroid reduces the incidence of dental caries to the same degree 
as sodium fluoride alone. 


Gentlemen, I would like to submit this exhibit for your inspection. 
These teeth came from natives from Aurora, 111., where they have a 
natural fluoride concentration of 1 to 2 parts per million, which is 
considered as an ideal about of fluoride. Proponents of fluoridation 
state that when water contains fluoride especially in the concentration 
of 1 part per million, children will not have cavities in their teeth — 
that only about 10 percent of children will have mottled teeth and this 
is only a pearly whiteness, or perhaps a little yellowish coloring — and, 
of course, this is prominent discoloration. 

Gentlemen, these teeth, I must reiterate, came from natives of an 
area where the so-called ideal fluoride concentration is naturally pres- 
ent in their water. You see cavities of many and varied sizes, some 
large enough for a caterpillar to crawl into; you see also teeth which 
are crushed and broken off — many filled — and as for mottling, and dis- 
coloration, it ranges from a yellowish brown, which resembles nicotine 
stains, to a dark mahogany, red brown color. 

This is the usual thing for those who cannot afford to buy bottled 
spring water. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have here a letter 
from Dr. L. D. Parnell, Wichita Falls, Tex. He says : 

I operate a clinical laboratory where we run a great number of blood tests 
for syphilis. 

We found that we could not use the city water even after it had been distilled 
three times in connection with these tests. 

We received an opinion from a technician formerly with the State health 
department, advising us that it was probably due to the sodium fluoride in the 
city water. 

I immediately procured rainwater, and the tests came out perfectly. 


Ml'. Chairnuui and geiitlemeii of the coininittee : 

1. In my animal experiments Avith fluoridation of drinkino; water at 
the College of Physicians and Sur<ieons we found marked pathology 
in the internal organs of the animals. There were hardening of blood 
vessels, canc'er-ex])erimental aninuils developed cancer growth more 
rapidl}' and blood clotting time was prolonged. 

2. Human experiments with fluoridated water at Brantford, 
Ontario, after a few years, shows twice as much dental decay as at the 
beginning of the experiment. The United States Bureau of Vital 
Statistics shows: in Grand Eapids, Mich., after 4 years of fluorida- 
tion there was almost 100 percent increase in death from heart disease, 
50 ])ercent increase in death from kidney disease, and 50 percent in- 
crease in death from intracranial disease (brain disease). The poj)u- 
lati(m increased only 8 percent. 

8. In fluoridation experiments at Xewburgh, N. Y., premature 
births showed 8 times as much fluoride in the placentas as in adjacent 
areas which have not fluoridation. 

4. There are a large number of premature births in the Southwest 
areas (which have natural fluorine), as for example, in New Mexico, 
per 100,000 population there are 55.9 premature births as compared 
with the entire New England area which has only 2.4, and has no 
natural fluoride in the water (this report is from the Bureau of Vital 
Statistics, 1948). Drs. H. V. and C. Smith, fluoride in the blood 
stream interferes with calcification of unernpted teeth. Tappeiner 
sliows cases on record that ingestion of small amounts of fluoride is 
fatal to man and other animals. In the 6 months experiment with 
lats. fluoride in small amo\nits caused enlargement of thyroid glands. 

5. In the Southwest areas most people drink bottled spring water 
at the advice of doctors, dentists, and health officers. 

Ck About 300 communities have voted against fluoridation. The 
following communities have thrown it out after using fluoridation for 
from 4 months to 2 vears: Plymouth, Shewano, and Stevens Point, 
Wis. : Mount Dora, Fla., and over 300 others. 

7. The following organizations have not given unqualified approval 
of fluoridation of public Avater supplies: the American Dental Asso- 
ciation, the American Medical Association, and the Hartford County 
Medical Society. They endorsed fluoridation "in principle only" ("in 
principle," means that it may have some value for laboratory experi- 
mental work but not in practice, for use in public water supplies). 
Congressional Record. March 1952. Dr. Lull, secretary and general 
manager of the AMA. testifies under oath that they did not urge nor 
i-ecommend that fluoridation be used in any public water supply. 

8. Fluoride mixing machines have frequent breakdowns so that 
Avhen more than 1 part per million fluoride is delivered there is no 
taste nor odor to Avarn us of the error. This has happened at New 
Britain, Southbury Training School, Northampton, Mass., and it AA-as 
reported in the American City Magazine of NoA'ember 1951 Avhich 
describes continual disruption of service due to the corrosiA^e nature 
of fluorides. 

9. There is no such thing as a "safe" amount of fluoride, due to the 
individual's biological variations. Some children sIioaa- clental fluo- 
rosis w^ith as little as 2 tenths of 1 part per million of fluoride. The 
fluoridation progi'am urges using five times that amount. 


The chemical sodium fluoride cannot be either assimilated or elimi- 
nated, but it is stored in the body. Fluoride attacks the kidneys 
causing backaches. Fluoride combines with calcium of the bone and 
is found as crystals stored in the hollow portion where the bone mar- 
row is normally present. The best teeth are found where there is no 
fluoride in the water. Dental fluorosis is an external manifestation 
of pathological changes in other parts of the body. The so-called 
benefits in Southwest areas are not due to the fluoride in water but to 
the increased mineral content of the soil. Artificial fluoridation is 
not necessary, as practically all foods we eat contain some natural 
fluorine which is easily assimilated by the body. 

10. Prolonged or repeated ingestion of any drug, in unknown quan- 
tities, without proper medical supervision and without due regard to 
the physical condition of each individual, is extremely dangerous. 
Fluoride, in particular, being a deadly poison, proven by medical and 
chemical research, is potentially productive of dire results on the 
human body. 

At the present stage of the fluoride experimentation, it is proven 
that safer and better methods can accomplish such benefits as are 
claimed for children's teeth. It is mass medication, human experi- 
mentation, enfringement of constitutional rights, and an entering 
wedge to socialized medicine. 

11. Chlorination and fluoridation can in no way be compared, as 
chlorination treats water to make it safe from harmful bacteria, while 
fluoridation treats the body, making it mass medication. Boiling 
chlorinated water removes the chlorine but boiling fluoridated water 
increases the potency of the fluoride chemical. 

12. Mass medication is socialized dentistry, forcing dental care upon 
each and every human being, whether we have teeth or not, or whether 
we need or want dental care or not, we would be compelled to drink 
a solution of fluoride, the most powerful, the most dangerous element 
known to man, for which there is no known remedy. 

13. Fluoridation interferes with home medication. 

14. Artificial fluoridation can be accomplished for those who want 
it by the addition of tablets or drops, by topical application and by 
using bottled fluoridated water which any health department would 
be glad to furnish free of charge to homes and schools, for those par- 
ents wlio want it for their children. 

15. Fluoridation at best might possibly benefit some, not all children 
up to age 8. Many of these children would gain no benefits whatso- 
ever ; some will suffer harmful effects, while a small minority of these 
children would not be affected either way if they enjoy very excellent 
nutrition. The only true benefit to be derived from fluoridation is its 
antiseptic quality as a mouth wash which can so well be obtained by 
rinsing the mouth with any other antiseptic solution. Those over 
age 8 would derive no benefit at all. 

16. Governor Dewey of New York vetoed fluoridation. The Hast- 
ings Law Journal, spring 1952, proves fluoridation to be illegal. It 
is a violation of our Federal Constitution, article I and amendments 1 
and 14 thereto. 

17. Fluoridation deprives us of our personal liberties, and violates 
freedom of personal care of one's own body. 


18. To force fluoridation down unwilling throats is not the Ameri- 
can way. Every human being and domestic animal would be co- 
erced into drinking fluoridated water making a veritable fluoride 
storehouse of our bodies. 

19. The health and safety code refuses the right to any department 
of health to force compulsory dental examination or service. 

20. Dental caries (decay) creates no epidemic or emergency of a 
contagious or infectious disease, therefore, there is no "clear and pres- 
ent danger" at all, and therefore no Public Health police power need 
be invoked. 

21. Consequently, it must stand that fluoridation of public water is 
unconstitutional and is in violation of State laws and the Federal 

22. If the State wants to make fluoridated Avater available to chil- 
dren, to partially prevent dental caries, fluoridated bottled water can 
be placed in the schools and homes of children for those who want it. 
The conflict would then be resolved and at a cheaper price moneywise, 
as well as from the standpoint of infringement upon individual rights. 

23. Scientists, now engaged in this research work, state that it will 
require 20 years to a life span before these experiments can give any 
meaningful results. Only the uninformed and the misinformed want 

24. For the preservation of good health and the welfare of our 
total population do not sanction fluridation of public water supplies. 

25. Pass the bill, H. R. 2341. 

26. Allow bottled fluoridated water to be made available to those 
who want it, thus permitting us all to have freedom of choice. 

I have a resolution of the Citizens Committee Against Fluoridation 
and the Connecticut Pure Water Association that I would like to 

Mr. Heselton. It will be made a part of the record. 

(The resolution referred to is as follows :) 

Resolution Against Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies 

Whereas fluoridation of public water supplies is in contravention of con- 
stitutional rights; and 

Whereas fluoridation is a potential danger from sabotage or defective equli)- 
ment ; and 

Whereas fluoridation coerces mass medication on entire populations ; and 

Whereas fluoridation is proven to be a cumulative poison, destructive to body 
enzymes, and a protoplasmic poison ; and 

Whereas individual biological variation precludes possibility of a "safe" 
amount of fluoride ; and 

Whereas science does not yet have a sufficiently delicate analytical technique 
to detect with certainty what is called subclinical injury ; and 

Whereas fluoridation is not necessary for healthy tooth formation and has 
never been proven necessary to maintain proper functioning of any body tissue ; 

Whereas various bureaus endorse fluoridation but do not guarantee (assume 
responsibility for) its safety; and 

Whereas fluoridation may jeopardize the health of the nation ; and 

Whereas fluoridation is economically unsound because water consumed for 
drinking and cooking constitutes only 1 percent of total amount of water used; 

Whereas fluoridated bottled water can be made available to individuals by 
local health departments, or by capsules, tables, etc. : Therefore be it 


Resolved, That no attempt shall be made to tamper with the public drinking 
water other than for the purpose of purification ; and we are unequivocally 
opposed to the addition of any fluoride to any public water supply. 

Citizens Committee Against Fluoridation, 
The Connecticut Pure Water Association, 
Lillian Van de Veee, President. 

Mr. Heselton. Your 15 minutes have expired. 

Miss Van de Vere. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Heseltox. On behalf of the committee, I Avant to express our 
appreciation of your comina' heie and ]n'esentinir the results of your 
extended studies. 

The committee has gone 15 minutes beyond the ordinary time for 
adjournment and there are other matters that the members of the com- 
mittee have to attend to before leaving tonight, so we will adjourn 
until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

I would suggest this, however, that those who have not spoken, 
might well confer together and see if they will not be able to so 
arrange their statements that they will be able to stay within the time 
available. That is from 10 o'clock in the morning, until 12 o'clock 

Then, the opponents will start their presentation at 2 o'clock in the 
afternoon, if we can obtain permission of the House to sit. 

(Miss Van de Vere submitted the following statement for the 

Statement of Miss Van df. Vere 

1. Newhuruli and Grand Kajtids Fhnuidation Experiment Stations show sta- 
tistics which prove that l)y aue 17 to 18 years, fluoridi^ted water as.uravates dental 
decay, so that there is far more dental decay evident in those children who have 
used fluoridated water than in the children who have used water without 

2. Knowing that fluoride attacks nerve cells (animal experimentation proves 
mental retardation among rats which were fed fluoridated water, Representative 
A. I>. Miller's report — Consressioiial fliKirldatioi, investigation. Il)n2). is it any 
wonder that there is evidence of marked intracranial (means within the brain) 
disease among Grand Rapids residents? Fluoride is an insidious poison which 
works slowly but surely in its devastating effect and imiiairment of physiologi'-al 

3. The most recent report on dental decay in Science magazine of May 14. 10."»4 
(b.v Joseph C. IMuliler and William G. Scbafer), published by the American 
Association for Advancement of Science, states, "Decreased thyroid activity is 
related to increased caries (dental decay) (susceptibility) in the rat. De.siccated 
thyroid reduces the incidence of dental decay to the same degree as sodium fluor- 
ide alone." This observation bears out more strongly that dental decay is not 
due to a lack or shortage of fluorine in the diet or in the teeth. 

4. A communication from Dr. Prothro, imlilic health officer of Grand Rapids. 
Mich., in 1952 stated that he is chairman of the heart committee and he is far 
more interested in reducing deaths from heart disease than in reducing dental 
decay in children, and if there is any scientific information which could be 
made available to him. it would be appreciated. In response to this request I 
sent a letter to Dr. Prothro. in which I stated the following information — which 
may explain why fluoride could be the cause of so many deaths from heart 
disease. My reasoning is this : We know that fluoride has a powerful affinity 
for calcium, and we know that, because of this, tetany (muscle cramp) in legs 
or arms is frequently observed, due to a calcium deficiency. Now transfer this 
reasoning of the muscle cramp (which occurs in legs and arms) to a similar 
muscle cramp which occurs in the heart (heart is a large muscle) and we have 
the reason for increase in deaths from heart disease in areas where water is 
artificially fluoridated. Residents from Grand Rapids and other fluoridated 
areas told us that their people come home from work, mention that they feel 


very tired, and drop dead, (ientlemen, this is a sitnatimi wliich should no lonixer 
be allowed to continue ! 

."). With all this scientific data aside, ^oin;; on to another asi)oct of the fluori- 
dation program. It is the unprecedented behavior of our local public health 
(itticials in Hartford, who removed and hid the antitluoridation exhibits from 
thet Union Railroad Station (Hartford, Conn.) which had attracted tremendous 
crowds of people. The Hartford Health Department exhibited their jn-otluorida- 
tion display in the railroad station, bank lobbies, theaters, PTA meetiui^s, public- 
health meetings, and the ^lunicipal Buildinjj;. Yet, after permission from the 
New Haven Railroad manajjer was granted to show the juitifluoridation exhilnt. 
they were removed, without permission, by the Hartford Health Department 
otticers. hidden away for days, without notice to anyone connected with anti- 
lluoridation, though my name and address were <-learly written on each )iart 
of each exhibit. They also removed the antitluoridation exhil)it from our pulilic 
lii)rary. When I appealed to our city manager. Carleton Sharpe, he said, "It 
is customary for the city manager to stand behind the heads of departments 
whom he appoints, and I shall not interfere with the activities of the health 
department. Sorry, nothing can be done." He also refused to allow our anti- 
tluoridation exhibit in the Municipal Building !obl)y. though he allowed the 
profluoridation exhibits for a long time. This was during the period when our 
Connecticut Legislature was in session in lOoS. However. I must give full credit 
and appreciation to our Governor. John Lodge, who was fair enoiigh to allow 
both the pro and the nntitluoridation exhibits tti l)e displayed in our State 
Capitol during the period when our legislature was considering some bills on 
fluoridation. How is one to interpret such openly antagonistic behavior by 
the Hartford Health Department? I tell you this, gentlemen, that you may 
know that fluoridation is more than a scientific venture or a medical program. 

More recently, our Public Llealth I>entist ;Menczer sent information across 
the country that our Hartford City Council favors fluoridation, when the truth 
is that Hartford city councilmen voted against fluoridation of iiublic water svip- 
plie.s — 6 to 2 (corporation council's letter in committee flies). Then, on Feb- 
ruary 10, 1954, this same Public Health Dentist Menczer about to give a talk 
on fluoridation of public water supplies to a cluli of young mothers at the putilif 
health building. He sent for Police Officer Lee because I and an assistant were 
distributing antifluoridation fliers, together with a flier from the United States 
Department of Agriculture, which information states that good food makes good 
health and good teeth. The complaint against me was that I was distributing 
'"offensive literature." We continued to distribute these in the public health 
lobby to the club members as they arrived. The public health dentist continued 
to berate us and pleaded with the club members to return the fliers to me and 
not read them. Needless to say. none were i-eturned, but were placed in their 
bags for future reading. The jiolice could find nothing ■■oft'ensive" aliout the 
material which we distributed and he told us that the antifluoridationists might 
go up to the meeting. OflScer Lee told him that this is a public building, that the 
lecture- is public health, and the dentist is a city employee. Dentist Menczer 
forbid us to attend. We went to the police building for advice. There was 
unanimous opinion among all the detectives and itatrolmen on duty that we can- 
not be barred from that meeting. They virged us to attend. When we returned 
at about 10 p. m. the building was in darkness and the door locked. Next day 
we learned that the meeting was not over until 11 : 80 p. m.. that Dentist Menczer 
locked the door and extinguished the hall lights to keep us out. 

In March lf)r)4 Jaycees in I'ristol, Conn., planned a closed meeting on fluorida- 
tion of public water supplies, to be attended only by the city councilmen, the 
water commissioners, and the unit of public health expert.s — (public health 
otticer. pul)lic health dentist, public health sanitary engineer (who plans the 
technical details for installation of fluoridating machinery) — and public health 
profluoridation speakers. 

After a tremendous struggle and final intervention in our behalf by a retired 
chief justice, whose contention was that every resident who drinks the public 
water should have a right to attend such a meeting, to know what is planned 
to put into his water supply, and that the invitees should be permitted to hear 
both sides of such a controversial subject. The meeting, at the last moment. 
was opened to the public, but there was no oppi)sition allowed to be voiced, no 
discussion allowed from the floor. The only questions answered were by wiitten 


request, and then only proponents of fluoridation were answered. The Jaycees 
had been ash:ed to si^ a request for fluoridation, many months ago, by the 
State board of health ; before they had heard anything for or against fluorida- 
tion, and they acceded because the board of health asked that they should. So 
it was with "the CIO, many PTA"s and other organizations, who have implicit 
faith in the health department and would not question their activities. 

This whole thing is an exact duplicate of what the Hartford Health Depart- 
ment did all last year, when they discontinued open debates and forums on fluo- 
ridation. (This was on the advice of United States Public Health Service as 
reported in the excerpts of fourth conference public health, dental association, 
and child welfare.) Is this the American way? Countless radio programs 
carried profluoridation propaganda, but our public health oflicials did not allow 
the program directors to permit antifluorido programs. They made many 
desi>erate efforts to prevent ray TV panel of Dr. Leo Spira, M. D., Dr. Ginns, 
D. M. D., and Dr. Robert H. Mick, D. M. D., all practicing doctors, and myself, 
from going on WNHC-TV (New Haven). However, this TV program director 
stood his ground because he had given the profluoridation public health officials 
twice as much time about a year before, and opponents of fluoridation had been 
requesting, by petitions and individually, for free equal time. Now we are 
having a repetition of this situation on another network. Why is the public 
health afraid to let the public hear or read anything against fluoridation? Are 
they engaged in thought control as well? 

6. Tliese ai-e statement of facts. I respectfully submit this information that 
you may know something of the background which accompanies this forceful 
effort of the public health to fluoridate our public water supplies. 

7. A little over a year ago I had a very violent allergic reaction from drinking 
two cupfuUs of coffee in a fluoriated area. Immediately upon finishing the second 
cupful, which was about 15 or 20 minutes after the first cupful of black coffee, 
I got violent cramps, felt nauseated, suffered excruciating pain. The room be- 
gan to spin around, so that I clutched the table where I had been drinking coffee. 
My eyes immediately swelled shut, also my lips. My tongue became swollen 
and looked like a golf ball. I could not speak for hours. My face became yellow 
and swollen to three times its usual size, then large blisters, the size and shape 
of big peanuts appeared on the lower part of my face. After about 2 days, these 
blisters broke and there was a violent gush of clear fluid. It happened suddenly 
and with such force that it took all the skin off my face and throat. I was left 
with bare red flesh, pouring large quantities of clear fluid. The burning, itching, 
tingling sensation was more than a human being could bear. I was in extreme 
agony, night and day, unable to sleep, with pins and needles sensation along the 
underside of my forearms from elbow to and including the little finger and ring 
finger and constant, terrific headache. The M. D. who attended me had never 
seen such a case before, and declared that it looked like a violent arsenic poison- 
ing. After about 7 weeks of struggling with this bafiling illness, I went to an 
allergist. He, too, was unable to make a diagnosis at that time. He tried 
everything until he found a way to help me and skin began to grow on my face 
and throat. During this entire siege I had become allergic to many things, in- 
cluding tobacco smoke (I don't smoke). During this time and even now, about 
18 months since the fluoride poisoning, my hair has been falling out by the hand- 
ful. The definite diagnosis has now been made. Others have had similar ex- 
periences. I do not know whether, on that day, the fluoride mixing machine 
went out of control (this happened often), or whether the coffee had been 
simmering for a long time, thereby increasing the concentration of fluoride. 
Should anything so hazardous as fluoride be allowed as an addition to any 
public water supply? 

During our brief visit to Washington, D. C, some of us used pure spring water 
from a local bottling company and avoided any food which was cooked in water. 
Those of my colleagues who tossed caution to the wind suffered terrific cramps, 
diarrhea, and headache. That is the usual reaction of the body to the first in- 
gestion of fluoridated water. Then they had to carry a one-half gallon jugful 
of the pure spring water with them, as it became necessary to flush and dilute the 
poison. Large quantities of milk gave some relief, as it replaced the calcium 
which is immediately attacked by the fluoride. Middle-aged and older people 
suffer most ; also the chronically ill, as well as the malnourished children and 


Gentlemen, it is as much a crime to allow fluoridating of public water supplies 
as it is to allow a maniac to run loose and discharge firearms. Nobody knows 
who is going to get hurt or who may die as a result of it. May I therefore re- 
spectfully implore you to pass H. R. 2341 and set us all free from this abomination 
which has come to our country? 

If your thinking should lead you to believe that passage of this bill, H. R. 2341, 
would interfere with States' rights, please, gentlemen, consider, for example, 
murder. That is not allowed in any State. Therefore, to prevent murder, or 
any other thing which could cause harm to any human body should be considered 
in the same light. Passage of this bill would not deprive any individual from the 
use of fluoride in any form, but it would prevent dire effects upon others if 
forced to accept it. 

(Thereupon, at 4: 50 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10 
a. m.. the following day, Wednesday, May 26, 1954.) 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

Washington^ D. C. 
The committee met, at 10 a. m.. pursuant to adjournment, in room 
1334, New House Office Building. Hon. Charles A. Wolverton (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The Chairman. The connnittee will please come to order. 


The Chairman. I see our colleague, Representative Long, of Louisi- 
ana, is present. Is it your desire to be heard, Dr. Long ? 

]\Ir. Long. Yes, sir, JNIr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are you for or against the bill ? 

Mr, Long. Against it. 

The Chairman. We have been hearing and expected to hear this 
moruing, the continuation of the proponents. However, we do make 
excei)tions in the case of Members of Congress, because of the fact that 
they have other duties to perform in other committees. So we will 
hear you, even though we have allotted this time to the proponents. 
The clerk will please take due note of the time Mr. Long uses, so that 
the pro])onents will likewise be recognized for the same time. 

Mr. Long. Thank you very kindl}', Mr. Chairman. 

First. I want to thank the committee and the chairman for the 
j)ri\i]ege of appearing here this morning. I have a prepared state- 
ment tluit I would like to submit for the record, and then to discuss 
from that prepared statement briefly, in order to save you as much 
time as I can. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Long. I want to take but a minute of your time this morning 
to ex{)ress myself as opposed to H. R. 2341. I have practiced dentistry 
for more than half a century. During that time, I have seen many 
mouths ravaged by decay, decay which could have been largely pre- 
vented had the benefits of our present-day knowledge of how to adjust 
the fluorine content of Avater supplies been available to them. 

As a dentist, I have been interested in the development of this pre- 
centive device. I have studied the scientific articles relating to it and 
I am convinced that it is absolutely safe and that it will help to reduce 
dental decay. 

I suppose you are familiar with the amount of money spent each 
year by the Federal Government for dental services to servicemen, to 



veterans, and to beneficiaries of the United States Public Health Serv- 
ice. Last year it amounted to more than $100 million. As a dentist, 
I know that a large part of this expenditure is caused by the tremen- 
dous number of cavities found in the mouths of these people. 

If all had been able to drink fluoridated water during their early 
youth, they would have been saved an immense amount of suffering 
and the Federal Government would have been saved a tremendous 
amount of money. 

I would like to say also that I am opposed to those features of this 
bill which would encroach on State and local rights of self-deter- 
mination. I don't think that it is the business of the Federal Gov- 
ernment in Washington to tell the people of my home city of Pine- 
ville. La., whether or not they should drink fluoridated water. 

I don't think that the people of Louisiana would like the Federal 
Government to tell our State legislature that it cannot pass a law 
authorizing community water fluoridation if it deems such a law wise. 
And furthermore, I don't think that the Congress has a constitutional 
right to take such action. 

Consequently, gentlemen, I recommend to you that you defeat this 
bill leaving to the several States the right to decide whether or not 
fluoridation is good for their people. If you do, I think as a prac- 
ticing dentist, that time will show that the benefits of this nutrient 
will, in the not-too-distant future, be available to most of the children 
who drink water from connnunity supplies, and that the resultant 
decrease in the amount of tooth decay will be both a health and an 
economic benefit to this country. 

I just w^ant to take a few minutes of time this morning to express 
my opposition to H. R. 2341. 

I have practiced dentistry for more than half a century. During 
that time I have seen many mouths, and I have been engaged in much 
research work. I have used a great deal of my time as a practicing 
dentist in helping in research, to try to find some of the cures for some 
of the things that have beset mankind in the way of decay and dis- 
eases of the mouth. 

I have used up a great deal of time and not only been interested in 
watching, but have been interested myself in research, in taking the 
actual patient, giving some of them fluorine and not giving it to 
others, and it has been my studied opinion that the fluorine has been 
very helpful, and I am very much surprised to see that some men who 
are learned men would take an opposite view of this splendid work. 

I can only say that it has been helpful in my own practice and it has 
done much good, and I know of no place where fluorine has injured 
any person for having used it in the water. 

But, may I make the statement that my opposition to this amend- 
ment is from the State rights proposition. I would not like to have 
the United States Government come into my little town of Pineville 
and say, "You cannot put fluorine in the water," after the chemists, 
the doctors, the scientists, have said that it would be good to be used 
on our children's teeth in that manner. 

I think this is a matter to be settled by the various States and vari- 
ous communities, and I do not believe, in my humble opinion, that it 
has any business in the Congress of the United States. 


Much time and much money has been spent by our Government on 
researcli. Nothing is more crippling and disfiguring than decayed 
teeth. Nothing has caused more ill health than trouble with decayed 
teeth, in my humble opinion, and that is after 50 years of hard work 
and study. 

Anything that will help to have better teeth and less decay is of 
great value. 

You might ask me why the dentists are so interested in this. My 
answer back to you would be, if you would multiply the number of 
dentists by 10 that are now practicing dentistry and, all of the chil- 
dren and all of the people should suddenly have money enough to 
have teeth lixed, in the next 10 years you still would not have made a 
start on the job, in reducing the amount of decay in existence. And, 
it starts with children early in life and they go through their life with- 
out having teeth enough to masticate their food properly, and their 
life is shortened by a number of 3^ears and their happiness is short- 
ened a gi'eat deal. 

We will be a happier people whenever we reach that point that 
we can listen to the scientific people and the people who are working 
with chemistry, in the interest of the human race, and we will be 
better off when we have more faith in them, and place our faith in 
the men who are handling the dental proposition and the other propo- 
sitions that we have to contend with, so far as medicine is concerned. 

1 thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairmax. Are there any questions ? 

Dr. Long, we appreciate your appearance today and the statement 
that you have made, which is based upon your long experience in the 
practice of dentistry. 

Dr. Long. That is right. 

The Chairman. I can assure you that the testimony that you have 
given will have the very careful consideration of the members of 
this committee. 

Dr. Long. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. And, your statement will be made a part of the 

Dr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Dr. Long consumed 5 minutes. Is Senator Hunt 
present ? 

The Clerk. He is on his way. 

The Chairman. I have statements for the record from Lt. Col. 
Robert J. II. Mick, of the United States Army Medical Corps, now 
serving in Germany. Colonel Mick is a resident of the congressional 
district which I represent. His home is at Laurel Springs, N. J. 

You can readily understand that the statement which has been sub- 
mitted by Colonel Mick is not in any way to be considered as a state- 
ment of the viewpoint of the Army Medical Corps. It is solely and 
entirely his individual thought. 

He had hoped that he would be present. I had assured him he 
■would be given an opportunity to testify when these hearings were 
held. That was prior to his entrance into the Army. 

Recently, when he entered the Army he was sent to Germany. He 
had hoped to be able to get permission to return in order to testify, 

48391—54 9 


but as that has not been possible, he has sent to us his prepared 

He has requested that it be made a part of the record and, I will 
see that it is made a part of the record. 

In addition to that, he also sent a tape recording of his views, which, 
would take approximately 45 minutes, if that were given. Of course, 
there is not time for that. His entire statement will be made a part 
of the record. 

(Someone from the audience asked if he was for or against the bill.)' 

The Chairman. He is in favor of the bill, and very strongly in 
favor of it. 

It would have been very helpful to have had the benefit of the testi- 
mony of Dr. Mick, because I know of my own personal knowledge, 
that for a long period of time he has worked as zealously in his study 
of this particular problem. His convictions, which are very strong, 
have risen as a result of that long and careful study, and experimenta- 
tion with rats and mice and whatnot. 

(The matter submitted by Dr. Mick is as follows :) 

P^'iFTH General Hospital, 

Bad Cmrnstatt, Oermany, 
A. P. O. 15.',, Netv York, N. T. 
Hon. Charles E. Wolverton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on Subject of 
Fluoridation of Water, 3136 House Ofjficc Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mb. Wolverton : I trust that above committee hearing testimonies of 
fluoridation of water will allocate sufficient time to listen to part II of my tape 
recordings. This part of tape deals with the mechanical relationship of quality 
of teeth to waters. Sufficient copies of mimeographed ••following" slieets should 
be available to committee. 

Part III of tape covers many of the reported harms on animals and animal 
experimentation from jii-esence of fluorine. 

Part I of tape covers part of the story on how certain groups or representatives 
of such groups have used their influence to keep the public and professional men 
misinformed, including letters to me. Such groups include New .lersey and 
Kansas Public Health Service, New .lersey State Dental Society, and the Surgeon 
General's Office of the United States (Department of the Army) and the United 
States Public Health Service. 

Attached hereto are evidence against the use of fluorine, including photo- 
graphs with explanations of experimental animals. This will disprove the 
value of artificial fluoridation of water and will also show the long-tei-m harmful 
effects of same. This series is sheet No. 1. (Filed with committee.) 

Sheet No. 2 contains photographs and explanations of fallacies (1) of protec- 
tion from dental decay in area, today, where fluorine is naturally in the drinking 
water; and (2) of the lack of need of any fluorine at all in drinking water, as 
showii by the United States Public Health Service. This latter part is also 
covered in tape II. (Filed with committee.) 
Yours sincerely, 

Robert J. H. Mick 
Dr. Robert J. H. Mick, 
{Lieutenant Colonel, USAR DC) D. D. S., Laurel Springs, N. J. 

P. S. Have enclo.^ed hectographed copy of tape II with complete set of fol- 
lowing mimeographs. 

Wording of Tape No. 2 of Dr. Robert J. H. Mick, Laurel Springs, N. J. 

My name is Doctor Rol)ert J. H. Mick, of Laurel Springs. N. .1. Inasmuch as 
I am now a lieutenant-colonel in the United States Army the opinions and as- 
sertions here are mine and not to be construed as that of the Army or the 
armed service at large. Tliis presentation begins with the date that the town 
without a toothache received its national and international publicity and of 
how the original misinterpretations of statistics originated two fallacious- 


stories: first, that of a direct relationship of l)etter teeth being found in some 
areas havint;- tluorine in the driiikiiiii' water, and second, the presence of llnorine 
in the drinking water of some areas being responsible for tooth decay in an 
inverse relationship to the percentage of parts per million of Huoriue found. 
But let us go back and see how the story of fluorine really got started. We'll 
take from the February issue of 1948 of the Reader's Digest, the story of the 
town without a toothache, of which many of you may be familiar — 1 will read 
in part l)ecause it is so important : 

Thk Town Without a Toothache 

.T. D. Ratcliff 

(Condensed from Collier's, December 19, 1952) 

A hopeful approach toward finding the cause and cure of the most prevalent 
of all human ailments — dental decay — has been made by shy little Dr. George 
W. Heard of Hereford, I>eaf Smith County, Tex. Xow 75 years old. Dr. Heard 
moved to Texas from Ahibuma 2(> years ago and started to practice dentistry 

Almost from the start he noticed that tliere was virtually no tooth decay 
among old residents. New settlers miglit need an occasional iilling. Gum and 
bone infections would sometimes necessitate an extraction or platework. But 
there were none of the fillings that make up the bulk of the average dentist's 

This absence of decay puzzled Dr. Heard. He questioned old-timers. "Never 
thought about it," they said. Funny thing, though, they added, you c(>uld 
bring spindly lishbone cattle up from Mexico, graze tliem for awliile, and they'd 
turn into fine )>ig-boned animals. And horses in the county had tine teeth. 
Even one old dog around town, IG years old, still had all his teeth. 

For years Dr. Heard went along looking for decay — and hardly ever finding 
it. For years at dental meetings he tried to Interest somebody in tliis strange 
business. I-'inally he buttonholed Dr. Edward Taylor, able, hard-driving State 
dental officer. Taylor drove througli the county, picked houses at ramlom, 
introduced himself, and asked if he could examine the family's teeth. Among 
5H ])eoi)ie, of whom 4;> were native born, varying in age from 2 to past 60, Dr. 
Taylor couldn't find a single cavity. 

Sul)sequently an examination of SIO Hereford school children revealed that 
well over half had no decay whatsoever. Eacli child was graded on a basis 
of decayed, missing, or filled teeth — DMP — in dental parlance. Average figures 
showed one DMF per child. Elsewhere it would hiive been from 5 to 10 per 

Another striking fact turned up. In people w'ho had moved to Deaf Smith 
County in the last lialf-dozen years, evidence of old decays were foiuid but 
the process had stopped. In many cases the floors of old cavities had acquired 
a liard, glazed surface. 

To determine the of tliis fantastic low rate of decay, peculiar to a small 
region in and around Hereford, research men first investigated the drinking 
water, which proved to contain 2.5 parts of fluorides per million parts of water. 
But fluorine alone wasn't the answer. In another Texas town with exactly 
the same concentration of fluorides, the decay rate, though low, was more than 
twice the rate at Hereford. 

Fieldmen gathered samples of meat, mill^, wheat and vegetables, for analysis 
at Texas Technological ( 'ollege. Almost from the outset one fact stood out 
clearly: the foods were astonishingly high in phosphorous, probably the most 
vital of all soil minerals. Carrots contained 50 percent more than usual, turnip 
greens ."SO percent, cabbage and lettuce GO jtercent. Meat and milk were simi- 
larly high in phosphorous. Wheat, the chief focxl product, ran GOO percent above 
normal. Calcium content also was high. 

Foods grown in Deaf Smith County probably obtain their superabundance of 
phosiihorous from the soft, porus caliche rock which underlies the area. Roots 
dip down into this spongy roclv for minerjil nourishment. 

Whether phosphorous alone is responsible, no one yet is preiiared to sa.y. 
Research men elsewhere have noted that rats fed liigli phos]ihorous diet have 
unusually good teeth. Fish is one of the richest sources of i)hosphorous, and 
anthropologists have found that decay is rare among primitive, fish-eating peo- 


pie. Over large areas of the earth, bad farming has mined out this vital min- 
eral. Cattle grazed on such land fail to mature properly, human beings become 
sterile. It seems possible that tooth decay is merely tlie first outcropping of 
phosphorous deficiency. 

Dr. Taylor is inclined to ascribe the low rate in Deaf Smith County to fluorides, 
sunshine, and calcium, as well as to phosphorous. Evaluating the part each plays 
is a job of considerable proportions — a job for a trained research grovip, armed 
with money and talent. Forward-thinking dentists realize their inability to 
cope with the problem of decay. Most people haven't enough money to buy 
proper dental care, and if they had there wouldn't be enough dentists to supply 
it. What is needed is more fundamental work on the causes; and this research 
in Deaf Smith County has opened the door for it. 

The original investigators never said that fluorine was the cause of better 
than normal teeth. But it was Dr. Taylor, Dr. Ast, Dr. McKay and all the other 
sponsors who started the fluorine story and who have since tried to save face, 
that have perpetrated this story. Let me continue. This original story was the 
story of Dr. George Heard, back in 1941. But let me read to you a little note of 
March 11, 1954, in which he says, "this fluorine craze is not correct. I am sure 
if another survey is made of Hereford the findings would be very different be- 
cause the food there is different. The pictures in my book reveal this fact. 
There are families of children here who have no caries and there are families 
here who have plenty of caries. There are families here where the children are 
different. Some have caries and some none. The difference is in the food in- 
take. The mouth reveals the type of food consumed." The sponsors of fluori- 
dation would have you believe there is au inverse relationship between the 
amount of fluorine in the water and the amount of dental decay that is present 
in the mouth, and they continue with such misinformation, publishing it in aU 
the newspapers and articles, such as in the Kansas City Star, Thursday, Decem- 
ber 31, 1953 and also again in the Kansas City Star Monday, January 11, 1954. 
Incidentally, Kansas City studied the story of fluorine for over 5 years. They 
turned it down in December of 1953. Let us assume that 1 or 11/2 parts per million 
of fluorine added to water as the sponsors have told you, or recommended, will 
stop dental decay or will give better teeth, then, will the sponsors lead you to 
believe that you can add just this recommended amount to distilled water, and 
your children drink this type of water and have the beautiful teeth that you 
expect? Will they guarantee there will be less dental decay, or will the same 
sponsors lead you to believe that you can drink the cola drinks or soft drinks 
and having used a city water, of 11/2 parts per million of fluorine mixed with it 
and that your children will develop good teeth and that they will not develop 
dental decay. Or, could there be some other factors in these waters as in 
Hereford, Tex. ? You remember it has the same amount of fluorine in the water 
as the town 50 miles away but the town 50 miles away had twice as many cavi- 
ties. This is not the only place where this phenomenon has taken place, and I 
will come to it. Or sh-all we go back to Amarillo, Tex., which is a neighbor to 
Hereford, Tex. and take their water and take the fluorine out. as is now being 
done by families that can afford it. They buy machinery and a little equipment 
that tliey put in the kitchen to remove the fluorine from the water. It is recom- 
mended for such by the physicians, or if you could still further afford it, in 
Amarillo, Tex., you buy Luzarken water which is advertised free from fluorine." 
Or should your children drink water as on the American Islands of Samoa to 
get their beautiful teeth, where the United States Public Health Service did beau- 
tiful work in 1950, where no fluorine at all was found in the water. Have you 
been told that? 

Colorado Springs is often used as an example of why fluorine is good, they 
have approximately 2.6 parts per million of fluorine in their water but you are 
not told that there is almost 100 percent of mottled enamel either to one extent 
or to some one degree or another. But Woodstown, N. J., has approximately the 
same amount of fluorine in their water (2.6 parts per million) but they have 
practically no signs of fluorosis at all. And there is Faulkland, S. Dak. They 
have approximately 2.8 to 2.9 parts per million of fluorine in the water which 
should give the children all mottled enamel, but there is practically no mottled 
enamel at all, why? Because of something that these men are not telling you 
that is also found' in the water. Or have you been told about Kiowana, Kenya, 
where the natives and the Indians (the Indians are from India) drink exactly 
the same water containing the same amount of fluorine in it. The only thing 
that they have in common is the drinking water. The natives have appruxi- 


mately the same amount of mottled enamel as the Indians but the natives have 
approximately 1 percent of their teeth that have any signs at all of minute decay 
and the Indians have (i percent, which is GOO percent more. Or, another way of 
saying it, 10 percent of the natives may have some dental trouble but 40 percent 
of' the Indians have decayed, missing, or tilled teeth. That is a difference of 
400 percent. There are every type of dental defect amongst these Indians that 
you could find. LUit amongst the natives there wasn't even an interproximal 
cavity. If Huorine was the miracle mineral both the natives and the Indians 
drinking of the same type of fluorinated water would have had the same pro- 
tection. Is that not right? But then let us go back and try to find out what is 
the relationship between water, not fluorine, to good teeth or to bad teeth and 
let us start with the statistics -that were published under the title of "Domestic 
Water and Dental Caries," April 11, 1941, by the United States Public Health 
Service. The investigators here were Doctors H. Trendley, Dean, Phillips, Jay, 
Arnold, and Elvove. This story is on the various cities in Illinois, with which 
you may be familiar. They are Elmhurst, Maywood, Aurora, Joliet, Elgin, 
Evanston, Oak Park, and Waukegan, and you are shown that as there is no 
fluorine in the water of Waukegan, Oak Park, and Evanston, and that 97% per- 
cent, V6 pei-cent, and V,6 percent of the individuals examined had decayed, missing, 
or filled teeth. And where there was 0.4 part per million of fluorine in the water 
only 8S percent had decayed, missing, or filled teeth, and where there was 1.2 
parts per million of fluorine it dropped to 81% percent to 7.5 percent and where 
the fluorine increased to 1.4 parts per million in the water then only 73i/^ percent 
had decayed, missing, or filled teeth and at Elmhurst, 111., where 1.8 parts per 
million fluorine was in the water 73 percent of the individuals had decayed, 
missing, or filled teeth. Or you can say it in another way. 

That at Elmhurst, 111., where there is 1.8 parts per million of fluorine in 
the water that 112 out of 154 examined had .some trouble with their teeth and as 
the fluorine content completely disappeared down to Waukegan that out of 229 
examined 223 had decayed, missing, and filled teeth. Or even to make it sound 
worse, that at Elmhurst, where there was so much fluorine in the water, that 
there wei"e only 3S1 with decayed, missing and filled teeth altogether out of all 
those examined, while at Waukegan the decayed, missing, and filled teeth 
increased to almost 1.900. On the surface these statistics are absolutely correct 
but what they didn't tell you is, that as the amount of total solids increased 
in the drinking water that the amount of dental decay also decreased. Now 
refer back to these towns and look imder the total solids present in the water 
at AVaukegan. There were 155 parts per million total solids (and total solids 
are all the minerals that are found in your water) though there was no part 
per million of fluorine and the total solids increased in Elgin to 180 parts per 
million to .Toliet to 5()(i parts per million, to Aurora and Maywood close to 730 
parts per million and in Elmhurst 737 parts per million of total solids in their 
water. Now .iust what are total solids'? Total solids are the combination of 
all the solids that are found in yoiir drinking water upon analysis. Let us take 
for example Laurel Springs, N. J., where the total solids part per million are 
100. There, if you took 2 gallons of water and boiled it down you would have 
a residue of a grayish, yellow matei-ial. These are the salts riiat are in the 
drinking water. These would weight approximately 18 grains. Now let us go 
to Woodstown, N. J., where there is 2.6 parts per million of tiuniine in the water. 
There you will find 485 iiarts per million of total solids. If you boiled 2 gallons 
of this water down you will get also a grayish, yellow mass a little bit different 
than that found in Laurel Springs, but you will have 63 grains of these minerals 
compared to the 18 grains found in Laurel Springs water. Now what does that 
mean? That means that every time that a child in Woodstown, N. J., takes a 
glass of water they get approximately four times more minerals per glass of 
water than a child drinking Laurel Springs' water. Or, say it another way, the 
children of Laurel Springs would have to get or would have to drink 4 glasses 
of water to get the same quantity of minerals as those in Woodstown, N. J., 
and we haven't discussed quality. 

Let us assume that you have a form to fill with concrete, concrete being 
a mixture of water, sand, cement and the other necessary elements. After 
you've made your mixture you find that you only have half enough cement mixed 
up. All you have to do is to add sufticient water to double the amount of cement, 
mix it up and pour it in that form. Eventually it will form a solid mass, but 
the original minerals will not have been increased and the total strength of 
the structure will not have been increased either. That is the same way with 
getting more minerals or less minerals. If your children can get more minerals 
per glass of water or in their food they have a better chance of having better 


boiips and better teeth. Let lis look at it in a different way on the relationship 
of this fluorine to possible making of better teeth or the prevention of dental 
decay. If yon are going to bnild a house you have timbers or structures and they 
have to be a certain length and certain size. You can build them out (f oak or 
you can build them out of balsam, and they will both be the same size and length 
but you will not have same strength, the oak being the stronger of the two and 
the more dense. Now let us assume that you are building them out of oak and 
that is tine. Along comes the termites and they start to put holes in the oak 
structure. Now you call in the exterminators. They come in and destroy 
either the termites or they make the wood so that the termites will not come in 
it. You still have the holes in the wood, but the strength is not increased. That 
is the same story with fluorine added to water. You can put in a substance 
that may be able to stop dental decay, but you do not increase the strength 
and you do not increase the quality of the original structure. Let us go back to 
the towns of Illinois. The children in Waukegan in their glass of water drink 
155 parts of total solids per million while those in Elmhnrst consume 7;'>7 parts 
of total solids per million. The children in Elmhnrst only have to drink 1 glass 
in 5 theoretically, to get the same number of minerals as those in Waukegan, 
or reverse it. The children of Waukegan have to consume 5 glasses of water 
to Elmhurst's 1 to get the essential minerals or total solids that make for good 
bodies and good teeth. If you had a garden or farm and wanted good vegetables 
you wouldn't put fluorine in the land, you would go out and get minerals — 
minerals — those essential things that make for better growth stt that the animals 
or human beings eating of the vegetables grown on the soil that is high in 
minerals will in turn have better nutrition. Some of you may still believe that 
if my story of total solids was correct the United States Public Health Sei"vic<> 
would surely come and find out if it were true. But, let me tell you, that is not so. 

The United States Public Health Service did commendable research work in 
1950 which shows that fluorine is not required at all in the drinking water of 
anyone to have good teeth and here it is. These are the results of the 1!)50 survey 
of the American islands of Samoa, conducted by the United States I'ublic Health 
Service and presented by Dr. Losee at the 1952 convention of the American 
Academy of Nutrition and released with the permission of Dr. H. Trendley 
Dean. Of the 6 islands of the American islands of Samoa the decayed, missing, 
and filled teeth in 100 vary from 10 in 1 group to 167 in another and those indi- 
viduals having decayed, missing, and filled teeth vary from 6 in the first group 
to 49 in the sixth group, and when the water was analyzed there was no 
fluorine at all. There was no fluorine at all found in 5 sources of water and in 
the sixth there was 0.2 p. p. m. The conclusions of the United States Public 
Health Service are: That the teeth get worse as the calcium gets less, as the 
magnesium gets less, as the chloride gets less, and the total solids get less, as 
the residue gets less, as the silica gets less, as the dicarbonates get less, and 
nothing is said about fluorine at all in the relationship to good and the bad 
teeth. When the sponsors of fluoridation talk about the amount of fluorine in 
water, make sure whether they are talking about the deep-well tests or whether 
they are talking about surface water. Because, as in Colorado Springs, water 
comes from the snow from the high mountains and runs over fluorine-bearing 
ore, such as bauxite and cryolite, and it will take up a large amount of fluorine. 
But in all deep wells where fluorine has been found and where the statistics 
have been gathered, you can find only a certain amount of fluorine, at the most, 
in proportion to the total solids or the minerals that are present. You can find 
water that is fairly high in total solids with no fluorine at all but you can nevei 
find water that contains fluorine that isn't in a proportionate relationship to 
the total solids or minerals that ai-e present in the water. The sponsors of 
fluoridation lead you to believe that urine can be used as a control for toxicity 
or accuiHulation of fluorine in the body. 

But let ns refer again to the figures gathered by the United States Public 
Health Service on the American islands of Samoa. Here the United States 
Public Health Service also analyzed the urine of the males and the females for 
the fluorine content. Upon analysis the males contained from 1.4 parts per 
million of fluorine in their urine to approximately 0.36. The females ran from 
0.4 to 1.58 parts per million of fluorine in their urine. Where did this fluorine 
come from? They started with no fluorine in the water. It could have come 
from no other place of course, than the food. So, let ns go to Philadelphia. 
Here also the water contains 0.0 to 0.2 parts per million of fluoilne in the water. 
A man working in Philadelphia and living in Philadelphia, upon analysis, has 
1.2 parts per million parts of fluorine in his urine. Where did that came from? 
Let us go to Woodstown, N. J. Remember, now, we are talking about natural 


fluorine in water. Here 1 male specimen excreted 2.3 to 2.6 parts per million 
fluorine. The second male excreted 2.9 parts per million of fluorine in his urine. 
No. 1 female excreted 1.2 parts per million and the second female excreted 1.8 
parts per million of fluorine in her urine. What happened to the fluorine she 
started with? She started with 2.0 parts per nuUion of fluorine in her urine. 
All of these individuals lived in Woodstown under normal conditions. If there 
can be no control of fluorine found naturally in drinking water how can there 
be any control for artiflcally controlled Huorine? Do the bones have an affinity 
for fluorine? Well let me quote you. In an article in the Journal of the Ameri- 
can Water Works Association, in August lfl.")3, entitled "Tlio Fluoridation of 
Municipal Water Supplies" it is stated "that it has long been known that bone 
has an aflinity for fluoride and that the use of bone was one of the earliest 
methods suggested for defluoridating water." Do you realize that there have 
been five plants in the United States today that have attempted to take fluorine 
out of the water? Also stated in this same article in the Journal of American 
Water Works Association, "That any water containing over li/j parts per million 
of fluorine is considered containing excessive fluoride." The people of Junc- 
tion City. Kans., were told that the fluorine content of their water was to be 
raised to one part per million. But at one time they were drinking 1.4 parts per 
million without their knowledge. In an article in that same Journal of the 
xVmerican Water Works Association entitled "The Affects of Fluoride in North 
Dakota Water Supplies" by Williams, they concluded that the rate of protective 
values can be determined for any group using the common water supply, but 
there will be a lessening of the rate of protection above the ages of 10 to 13, the 
age increasing with increasing fluoride content. Now we're talking about natural 
fluorides. They also concluded that some factor or other than the presence of 
fluoride retards decay between the ages of 8 and 11. This is on page 878 in the 
August edition. And they conclude finally : "that further investigation should 
be taken to answer the questions posed by (Officer Bacon in the present survey : 
First, why does the rate of protection change above a certain age (now we are 
talking about natural fluorides) and, second, what is the apparent antidecay 
factor operating between the ages of 8 and 11? The original investigators have 
bypassed the work that was done and sponsored by the American Dental Associa- 
tion back in 1924-26 and published in the 1926 edition of the Journal of the 
American Dental Association. This work was done under a grant from the re- 
search commission and it is the only work that has even been sponsored and 
paid for by the American Dental Association. This work was done at the 
West Texas State Teacher's College under the leadership of Dr. Pierle of Can- 
yon. Tex., and this is the only conclusion that was ever published in a dental 
magazine on work that was paid for by the American Dental Association. There 
are three conclusions : First, that it is possible to produce mottling and brown 
stain in the teeth of animals by lowering the calcium intake below that needed 
for the gi-owing animal ; second, it was also possible to prevent mottling by sup- 
plying the calcium requirement of the animal ; and, third, the production of good 
teeth must begin during the gestation period by feeding the mother with sufficient 
bone- and tooth-forming material to meet all requirements. Folks should know 
that any city that has a water-softening plant is stealing vital minerals from 
fbeir children, such as the minerals of calcium and magnesium and the body 
building bicarbonates which are required for strong teeth and strong bones. 
They are the minerals that are removed so that the people can have soft water 
at the expense of good teeth. What are these requirements? The name of Dr. 
Harold F. Hawkins is familiar to all dentists. He states, "the tooth is com- 
posed essentially of lime salts. The enamel is the most important tooth structure 
in consideration of caries, for if there is no gum recession, the enamel has to be 
penetrated before the dentine can become involved. The enamel is composed of 
almost 90 percent tricalcium phosphate and about 10 percent calcium carbonate 
with traces of magnesium, fluorine, and so forth. 

Tape No. 2. Mechanics of Water in Relvtionship to Quality of Teeth (or 
Decay Resistance) and Dental Fluorosis 

Dr. Robert J. H. Mick. Laurel Springs, N. J. 

(This supplements listening to tape No. 2) 

Concernintr Hereford. Tex. (See accompanying article "Town Without a 
Toothache," Readei-'s Digest, February 1943) : It is due to this partial reprint 
and in turn partial quotes of same, that public was first misinformed (para- 


graph of Dr. E. Taylor's. Public Health official) on relationship and importance 

of fluorine to quality of teeth and dental decay. 

Reference : Fluorine content Hereford, Tex., drinliing water : 

2.5 parts per million. 

Dental conditions : Reported by Dr. George Heard ; 

Dental decay progressively worse on same fluorine water. 

1916 (approximately) — Number of cavities among native residence: approxi- 
mately nil. 

Dental decay progressively worse on same fluorine water. 

1942 — Out of 810 children examined, over one-half had no decay at all. 

1954 — (March 11) (Letter to Dr. Mick from Dr. George Heard). 

(Increase over 1942). 

Dental decay progressively worse on same fluorine water. 
Same report : Families with no cavities ; 

Families with plenty of cavities. 

1942 — Town, with same fluorine content (2.5 p. p. m.), had over twice as much 
dental decay. 
Reference : Which liquid containing fluorine contributes most for better teeth 

and bodies, less tooth and body disease? 

1. Distilled water (mineral free) plus 1 p. p. m. fluorine. 

2. Sweetened beverages (Cola, etc.) plus 1 p. p. m. fluorine. 

3. Natural waters normally containing 1 p. p. m. fluorine that produces no dis- 

coloration of teeth. 

(a) Natural waters normally containing 1 p. p. m. fluorine, which causes 
varied degrees of permanent discoloration of teeth (Arizona), or dilution. 

(b) Natural waters normally containing 1 p. p. m. fluorine; but, as re- 
ported by Kemp, Wilson & Roberts in their investigations. 64 percent of a 
group of children (ages 14-17) exhibited ostedchondritis of the spine 
(Launton, England ; 1 p. p. m. fluorine). 

(c) Natural waters with 1 p. p. m. fluorine added artificially. 

4. Natural waters with higher than recommended fluorine content, the re- 
moval of which fluorine is suggested by physicians to prevent permanently dis- 
colored teeth (as in Amarillo, Tex.) : 

(fl) Natural waters with high fluorine content where "fluorine free" water 
is imported to prevent permanently discolored teeth (as in Amarillo, Tex.). 

(ft) Natural waters with higher than that recommended, causing only 
disfiguring mottling of teeth of children ; but in report of Shortt conclusive 
evidence is presented that the fluorides are responsible for a high percentage 
of crippling skeletal manifestations in adults over 30 years old. 

5. Waters naturally containing less fluorine than recommended, but capable 
of causing permanently discolored teeth (Tucson and Chandler, Ariz.). 

6. Waters naturally containing 50 to 150 or more fluorine than recommended ; 
but cause no discolored teeth, as in Faulkton, S. Dak., and Arizona. 

7. Waters containing approximately 2.6 parts per million fluorine (as Colorado 
Springs, Colo.) that causes almost 100 percent permanently discolored teeth 
with higher decay rate after 18 years of age (AWW Journal, August 1954). 

8. Waters containing approximately 2.6 parts per million (as in Woodstown, 
N. J.) with no gross fluorosis (compared to Colorado Springs) with consistent 
decay-resistant teeth after 18 years of age. 

9. Waters containing approximately same fluorine in 2 different towns, 50 
miles apart, but where dental decay rate of 1 town is over 100 percent greater 
than other (as reported in Collier's, December 1942). (Same fluorine content; 
varied dental decay.) 

10. Waters of a town (Kisumu, Kenya) containing fluorine where different 
groups drinking same water have a difference of 600 percent in number of 
diseased teeth; and there is a difference of 400 percent in number of children 
having diseased teeth, although each group had approximately same percentage 
of discolored teeth. (Same fluorine content; varied dental decay.) 

11. Waters of a section (around Ilbissel, Kenya) where all ages of children 
have 100 percent perfect teeth and no discoloration. 

12. Waters containing higher than recommended amount of fluorine, but on 
varied human food programs can produce both discolored teeth or nondiscolored 
teeth (as reported ADA Journal, July 1926). 

13. Water containing lower than recommended amount of fluorine, but on 
varied human food programs can produce either opaque, poor-quality teeth, 
or transparent, high-quality teeth (Mick, 1949-53). 



14. Water (same as above) containing lower than recommended amount of 
fluorine, plus the conditions known to produce fine-ciuality teeth, but witli 
addition of artificial lluoride to this water produces iwor, hollow, blunted 
teeth, poor bones, a crippled, emaciation, paralysis, and accumulation of up to 
500 percent more fluorine in the teeth, bones, livers, kidneys, spleens, than in 
same type animals drinking same type of water without the artilicial addition 
of fluorine. (Mick.) 

1."). Waters (reported by U. S. Public Plealth Service in 1950 in survey of 
American Islands of Samoa) known to be fluorine-free, which help produce 
beautiful decay-resistant teetli. 

l(i. Waters containing naturally less fluorine than recommended ; a report 
by Pandit et al., covering 3 years of investigation in areas with fluoride content 
as low as 0.6 part per million, disclosed symptoms of chronic crippling intoxi- 
cation in residents of over 15 years. 

17. Or is it waters that have been artificially fluorinated for centuries that 
have produced decay-free teeth in flsh and animals ; or if children drink the 
same water as a dog, yet the children develop decayed teeth, and the dog 
doesn't, can fluorine, added to the water, improve either the dog's teeth or 
the child's health'? (Dental disease is merely the visual appearance of possible 
accompanying internal disease or degeneration.) 

15. Or (back to reference No. 1 on Hereford, Tex.) should more fluorine be 
added to water known to produce perfect teeth three generations ago, although 
in 1954 (according to the same Dr. George Heard w'ho reported those decay- 
free teeth) some of the children living in the same area, drinking of the same 
water, have many decayed teeth? 

Reference: Rclationshii) of presence of fluorine to dental decay — "Domestic 
Water and Dental Caries"— VSPHS 

[Figures by H. Trendley Dean, Arnold, and Elvove, Apr. 11 1941] 

In Dlinois 

Parts per 


total solids 

Parts per 

Dental ex- 
rate perma- 
nent teeth 
per 100 


filled teeth 

Number of 

filled teeth 

Percent of 

filled teeth 

Elmhurst .. 


■ 252 






















Oak Park.- 



Reference: Total solids of Laurel Springs and Woodstoicn, X. J. 


(2 gallons of 



Total solids: 100 parts per million (ap- 
proximately 18 grains). 
Fluorine : 0.05 part per million. 
Fluorine to total solids : 1 to 2,000. 
Color: light tan (buff). 

Total solids: 485 parts per million (ap- 
proximately 63 grains). 
Fluorine: 2.(5 parts per million. 
Fluorine to total solids : 20 to 2,000. 
Color: Pasty gray. 

Parts per million total solids of Laurel Springs to Woodstown : 1 to 4.85. 
Parts per million fluorine of I>aurel Springs to Woodstown: 1 to 52. 
Weights of total solids of Laurel Springs compared to Woodstown : 1 to 3.5. 

Glass of Laurel Springs water contains N total solids. 

Glass of Woodstown's water contains 4.85X total solids. 



Reference: Relationship of quality of ivater to dental decay — "Domestic Water 
and Dental Caries"— USPHS 

[Figures by H. Trendley Dean, Arnold, and Elvove, 

Apr. 11, 1941 (now including figures from p. 27)] 

In Illinois 

Parts per 


total solids 

Parts per 

Dental ex- 
rate perma- 
nent teeth 
per 100 


filled teeth 

Number of 

filled teeth 

Percent of 

filled teeth 







Oak Park 

















Reference: Result of 1950 survey of American islands of Samoa presented by 
Dr. G. Losee at 1952 convention of American Academy of Nutrition and re- 
leased with permission of Dr. H. Trendley Dean 

c/o DMF teeth 

DMF in 100 

DMF ind in 100 

Tot?l dissolved solids (103 C) 

Loss on ignition 

Fixed residue 

Silica (SiOj) 

Iron (Fe) 

Aluminum (Al) 

Calcium (Ca) 

Ma gnesium (Mg) 

Sodium and potassium (calculated as Na) 

Carbon" te (cocoa) 

Bicrbon-te (HCOa) 

Sulfate (SO4) 

Nitric (NO3) 

Chloride (CI) 

Phosphate (P04)_.. _ _ 

Fluorine (F) 

Urine analyses: 

Fl male urine 

Fl female urine 




























































































Common trends : 

Teeth get worse. 

Calcium gets less. 

Magnesium gets less. 

Chloride gets less. 
Partial trends (getting less) : solids, residue, 

silica, bicarbonate. 

Reference: On urine analyses {parts per million fluorine) 

American IslancLs of Samoa (6 sections) : 

Fluorine content of water : 0.0, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0. 

Fluorine content of urine: Male, 1.41, 0.94, 0.36, 0.46, 0.37, 0.68; female, 
0.45, 0.86, 0.50, 0.47, 1.07, 1.58. 
Woodstown. N. J. : 

: 2.6. 
Male, 2.3, 2.9 ; female, 2.2, 1.8. 

Fluorine content of water 
Fluorine content of urine : 
Philadelphia, Pa. : 

Fluorine content of water 

0.0 to 0.2. 

Fluorine content of urine : Male, 1.2. 


Fifth General Hospital, 
APO 154, Bad Cannstatt, Gekmany, 

May 11, iy.')4. 
Hon. Chakles A. Wolvebton, 

Camden, N. J. 

Deak Mk. Wolverton : Enclosed are five copies of original article that started 
the fluorine story in hiiili .war. Please attach them to mimeos that go with tape 
recordinpc. It is" here that Dr. Taylor's misinterpretation started. 

Your two most important witnesses against fluorine are still living. One is 
the same Dr. George W. Heard, of Hereford, Tex., and Dr. Chester Pierle, of 
Canyon, Tex. Dr. Pierle performed the only animal research work sponsored 
by the American Dental Association. Part of his results were published in July 
192(i in ADA Journal. The same men who have since promoted this criminal 
farce saw and bypassed his flndings. The other investigaters that worked with 
fluorine and published its harmful effects in July 192(5 in a dental journal are 
JMargaret Smith, et al.. of Arizona (well known). No sponsor of fluoridation 
(or group) iiave published the results of one long-term experiment with analysis 
of body tissues (teeth, bones, kidneys, spleen, livers). I had published the only 
results of three generations on artificial fiuoridation. The United States Army 
has much on the subject — can be obtained from a Colonel Gordon, Medical Field 
Service School, Fort Sam Houston, Tex. It has to do with killing rats. Using 
this particular fluoride compound the Army puts a container of water containing 
this "tasteless"' material in a 20-foot (diameter) circle that is covered with 
DDT powder. The rats die before they reach the outside of circle and the in- 
fected lice that leave the animals are killed by the DDT. It took the Dalare 
Associates (chemists) 8 months to detect this fluoride compound in dogs even 
when they knew what they were looking for. It is so potent that not only the 
animals are killed, but .so are the animals that eat of that animal or if a chicken 
should eat, accidentally, of poisoned food, the animal that eats of that chicken will 
also die. 

It is a lesser degree of destruction from another fluoride compound that 
the brewers of this country owe their ability to make beer quickly — but animals 
that eat of these beer slops into which most of the fluoride goes become ill, their 
body and teeth show the harmful effects, etc. (June 15, 1951), reported by Naval 
Research, Bethesda, Md. The analyses were conducted by United States Gov- 
ernment — the hai'mful eft'ects rejxirted to animal raisers, not humans. 

To .fust make it illegal or unlawful to allow fluoridation is not the answer — 
the promoters .should be brought to trial and made to prove their past asser- 
tions liy works — not words. If the long-term bodily permanent harms are as has 
been shown, then such retribution as possible should be made and such organiza- 
tions that are sponsoring same (fluoridation) should stand the penalty of their 
crime. They are now hiding behind the petticoat of "health." 

T'nfortunately. the fluorides placed in drinking water in recommended amounts 
will not kill an individual. The harmful eifects will show up in the next gen- 
eration as it does in animals. The effects are permanent. Your loss of physical 
stamina and manpower will be more aftected in the next 20 to 40 years than 
any war could I know you can't believe it — it would only take 1 year 
of controlled laboratory experiments to prove it — either by our Government or 
the sponsoring (ADA, AMA, USPHS) organizations. They have spent millions 
to try to promote fluoridation and keep the public uninformed. They have spent 
nothing on learning tlie facts. 

Some day you will be most happy to have had the privilege of being chair- 
man of connuittee into which this bill was directed. 
Most sincerely. 

Dr. (Lt. Col.) RoHERT J. H. Mick. 

Juxction City, Ivans, (until March 23). 
Laurel Springs, N. J. (April 4 to 14). 

A copy of this letter is being sent to you officers and directors of the Odontologi- 
cal Society of Western Pennsylvania. I trust that you will see flt that this is 
pul)li.sheil in your journal so that your members may at least know that there 
is another side to fluoridation and let them form their own opinions. This letter 
is in reference to Editor's Notes, by your editoi-. Dr. Isaac Sissman, and the article 
by Dr. Gerald Cox, of Pittsburgh, on fluoridation in your February issue. 

Inasmuch as I am now a lieutenant colonel in the Dental Corps of the United 
States Army, the opinions or assertions contained herein are mine and not to 


be construed as being official or as reflecting tbe views of the Department of the 
Army or the Army service at large. *■' 

Both of these gentlemen's writings are a prime example of how to withhold arri 
truthful information and how to continue to misinform and confuse you and"* 
the public. The eilitor has taken it upon himself to criticize the criticism of 
Dr. Gerald Cox and vehemently waves the flag in his behalf. There is no other 
man in the world today that has devoted himself to the amount of practical 
research work on fluorine as has Dr. Dillon (whom Dr. Cox criticizes), and. 
Xmless you gentlemen are shown the complete series of all of Dr. Dillon's work 
(published in English dental journals), you, too, will continue to expose yourself 
to this same type of influence as Dr. Gerald Cox has been exerting on his 
"gullibles" and uninformed students for some years. 

And if Dr. Sissman knew anything (except what he's been told or given to 
read by such as Dr. Cox) at all on the mechanics of water and its relationship 
to quality of teeth (not disease prevention), he himself wouldn't be so gullible 
as to print the resolution of El Paso Connty Medical Society as further confirm- 
ing the virtues of this miracle mineral, fluorine. The most important part of 
this Colorado Springs story isn't being told you. And if your editor knew the 
story about Dr. Edward Taylor and his questionnaire and what he was trying 
to cover up and what he has attempted to keep from you, your editor wouldn't 
print such a statement as. "It is unfortunate that even dental journals resort 
to spreading fear and doubt, etc.," and, "There are silly charges made by, etc." 

I am one of that group making "silly" charges, but with e litors such as Dr. Siss- 
man how can they he brought before the bulk of professional men who are sup- 
posed to have the intelligence to read all sides of so vital a question as fluorida- 
tion and then form their own opinions'? Information of this type is distributed 
at the individual's expense and not by paid employees of some organization. 
The Journal of American Dental Association's editor said of my own i-esearch 
work, "Very interesting reading, but unsuitable for publicaticm." Public health 
service representatives of New Jersey and Kansas have used pressure to "hush 
me up" and keep more of my work from being printed or heard. Of course, when 
I originally went along with the story, I was a "good fellow." 

I congratulate your organization for providing space in a journal for men like 
Dr. Sissman and Dr. Cox to air their personal views, as neither one presented 
anything original or constructive. Of course, Dr. Sissman doesn't want space 
used for any "silly" truthful facts. 

I am to speak in Philadelphia Tuesday, April 13, against fluoridation, and will 
there present such truths as the following: That this whole "fluorine" story 
could have been built up around one of a half dozen minerals if it hadn't been 
that fluorine in excess is conspicuous by its mottling effects, and thus was born 
the "endemic" areas. From here on in the blind I'esearch workers could not 
see and have made no efforts to have their eyes opened. They have been blinded 
b.y that brown "fluorine tree" beyond which they cannot see the green forest. 
Drs. Dean, Ast, Elvove, Arnold, and all the others (Dr. Cox is at head of list; 
men like Dr. Sissman at bottom) will some day be known for what they are — 
originally conscientious, fine men who used their professional associations to i>ro- 
mote the greatest farce and life-destroying method that has ever been propagated 
in the name of health. And I will continue to repeat this accusation (which is 
in hands of all groups accused) : "I accuse the United States Public Health 
Service, the American IMedical Association, the American Dental Association, 
and all groups or individuals sponsoring the artificial fluoridation of water of 
knowingly or unknowingly misinforming you, the public." 

Dr. Robert J. H. Mick. 

P. S. — If Dr. Gerald Cox is so sure of himself, have your group arrange for an 
open forum between him and myself to be held in Philadelphia between April 5 
and 14. before I go to Europe with Armed Forces. lie has never faced anyone 
who knew the facts. His refusal will confirm my accusations. Otherwise, at 
your request, I will criticize, paragraph for paragraph and line for line. Dr. Siss- 
inan's editorial and give you the references that you may verify same for 

You all know of the fourth annual conference. State dental directors, with the 
Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, which convened in Federal 
Security Building, Washington, D. C, June 19.51, with Dr. John W. Knutson, 
Chief. Division of Dental Public Health, Public Health Service, and Dr. John T. 
Fulton, Dental Services, adviser. United States Children's Bureau, as cochair- 
man, presiding. Among leaders attending the conference were Dr. Leonard 


Scheele, Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service ; Dr. David 
Ast; Dr. Fred Wertheimer ; Dr. DeCamp ; Dr. Glover Jones; and Dr. Bull. It 
•asDr. Bull's advice: "Now, where dentists do not seem interested (in fluorida- 
lon) , do not let that stymie you. What we do in a case like this is to arrange for 
the PTA or some group to ask for some of us to come in and talk about fluorida- 
tion. In this way you get in without forcing yourself, and you can build a fire 
under the dentists. ' That is promotional work." 

Also, "The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. 
Jii^t pass it over. 'We know there is absolutely no effect other than decay,' 
you say, and go on. Don't bring it up yourself." Also, said Dr. Bull, "This 
toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't give you the answer on it" ; and, "So 
when vou get the answer on the question to toxicity, please write me at once, 
because I would like to know." And he also makes, plus many, many other 
incriminating statements, "* * * and let me tell you this : The medical audience 
is the easiest audience in the world to present this (fluoridation) to." 

Any man can make a mistake. It takes a truly big man to publicly admit 
when he's been wrong. But to continue to sponsor a program to save face at. 
the possible expense of the health of future generations should be criminal. 

R. J. H. M. 

This is a copy of a letter sent to me by Dr. Gerald Cox. 

Dr. Robert J. H. Mick. 

March 5, 1954. 
Dr. Robert J. H. Mick, 

8 Grant Drive, Junction City, Kans. 


Officers and Directors, 

Odontological Socictii of Western Pennsiilvania: 

Each of you latter has presumably received the mimeographed comment of 
Dr. Robert J. II. Mick concerning the editorial and my comments on the Dillon 
article in the November issue of Dental Digest. 

We are accused of withholding "truthful information." 

The article was written in response to an inquiry from Dr. Ralph Rosen, of 
St. Louis, and was (juite naturally limited to a critical evaluation of the Dillou 
article. The evaluation was made on the basis of all of Dillon's papers which 
were available to me. If you will I'ead my comment in tlie bulletin and Dr. Mick's 
comment, you will see that he has nothing to say about the facts embodied in the 
ratios of calcium and fluorine in blood and milk. These, I say, are facts, not 
opinions, and cannot be overthrown by any statements of opinion, however violent 
they may be. As Dillon has not given these simple chemical facts, I have con- 
cluded that he is not a chemist in the sense of understanding what he does when 
he uses chemicals and chemical apparatus. 

The space available to Drs. Sissman and Rosen in their respective journals 
did not permit giving all the "truthful information" about fluorine and life. Dr. 
Sissman even omitted the literature references to save space. However, if you 
want to see summarizations of the "truthful information" about fluorine and its 
relation to life, you can find it summarized in The Toxicity of Iluorides in Rela- 
tion to Their Use in Dentistry, by myself and Harold C. Hodge, of Rochester, 
N. Y., published in Journal of American Dental Association 40 : 440-451, April 
1950, and in my chapter. Fluorine and Dental Caries, publi-shed on pages 325-414 
in A Survey of the Literature of Dental Caries, Publication 225, National Acad- 
emy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D. C, 567 pages. If 
any doubt remains in your minds about the fairness of my interpretations of the 
facts of fluorine in either of these articles, or in any others that I have written, 
you will find them fully documented. You can, if you care to, get the original 
articles and see for yourself— in English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian, 
and including the Scandinavian. 

You will note that Dr. Mick uses the technique of suggestion that 'the most 
important part of the Colorado Springs story isn't being told you" aad that Dr. 
Taylor has tried to cover up something. Just what are these facts? Isn't it 
Dr. Mick who is guilty of withholding something? 

During the week of April 13, I will be attending the annual meeting of the 
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Atlantic City to- 


present a paper entitled "Maximum Growth of Sueklins Rats." The program 
is not yet available and so I do not know when I am scheduled to give my report. 
I have faced Harris, Hurme, Strongin, and Betts in debates, and, as some of you , 
may know from being present, Mick, himself, in an impromptu brawl in the meet-A 
ing" of the Academy" of Dentistry of Pitt^-burgh on Monday, May 26, 1952. If* 
these people don't know the facts, then who does? I heard none of these oppo- 
nents of fluoridation deal with any facts, based on water containing 1 part per 
million fluorine, that are adverse to the fluoridation of water. 

Dr. Mick has issued the challenge. Is it nut my privilege to indicate the 
weapons? Would he consent to have his speech recorded and then played back 
immediately for an analysis that seeks the facts? Would time be allowed for 
full treatment? 

Dr. Mick has lifted from context some words from Dr. Bull. The real meaning 
of Bull's statement is that there are communities, such as Stevens Point and 
La Crosse, Wis., Seattle, Cincinnati, and Lansing, where the illogical outcries 
of the opponents have deluded the people. Bull shrugs his shoulders and says, 
"Let 'em suffer." So the children of these cities can go on with their fluorine 
deficiencies, but not because of Dr. Bulk 

You should read in the cold light of reason the words of the opponents. You 
will find nothing but sound and fury. 

Gerald J. Cos, 
Professor of Dental Research. 

(I wonder if the gentleman present at that Academy of Dentistry's meeting 
also considered the discussion that Dr. Cox (not myself) sidetracked into the 
limelight that evening as an impromptu brawl? 

(As you remember. Dr. iMelvin Page had been invited to present his unusual 
work on body chemistry. For the mutual benefit of those present, questions 
should have been directed into that channel. But when Dr. Cox asked Dr. Page 
what his feelings were on fluoridation, it was at Dr. Page's suggestion (not mine) 
that any questions from Dr. Cox be directed to me.) 

(Robert J. H. Mick.) 

March 12, 1954. 
Dr. Gerald Cox, 

ISchool of Dentistry, University of Pittsburgh, 

Pittshuryli, Pa. 

Dear Dr. Cox : If the Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
Biology would care to allocate sufficient time on their program or as an extra 
activity, wiiereby I may present information, have it recorded, and played back 
immediately for analysis, as you request, I would only be too glad to accept the 
challenge. Inasmuch as you have offered to accept the challenge and have "indi- 
cated the weapons" of the recording, to which I agree, I think it would simplify 
my presentation by having you prepare the five most important reasons (or more) 
why you believe fluorine should be artificially added to drinking water and send 
them to me by April 7. 

If the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology do not see 
fit to allow time for a presentation by me on why and how the sponsors of 
fluoridation are knowingly or unknowingly misinforming the public, basing pres- 
entations as nearly as possible on discussing the reasons submitted by you on why 
there should be artificial addition of fluorides, then I will still ask you, Dr. Cox, 
to arrange for an open forum with dentists and physicians invited to be held in 
PhiladeUhia. The same conditions stated by your and myself would be the 
procedures of the program. 

Due to the date I am leaving for overseas assignment, the program would have 
to bs arranged between the dates of April 5 and 16, with the exception of Tuesday 
evening, April 13. 

I trust that you will contact the Federation of American Societies for Experi- 
mental Biology ; that their program chairman, if he so desires, will, in turn, 
contact me. 

In any case, I await your reply of my acceptance to your challenge. 

Address until March 28, 1954 : 8 Grant Drive, Junction City, Kans. 

Address after April 3, 1954: Laurel Springs, N. J. (phone 4—0167). 
IMost sincerely, 

Robert J. H. Mick, D. D. S. 


The Chairman. Is Dr. Brusch present ? 

Di'. Brusch. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman, Doctor, are yon for or against the legislation? 

Dr. Brusch. I am for it. 

Tlie Chairman. In snpport of it? 

Dr. Brusch. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAnaiAN. AVere yon })resent yesterday when we annonnced 
that there would be a limitation of 15 minutes for each witness? 

Dr. Bruscii. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, because of the great number who wished to 
be heard, and the available time being limited, it was necessary to 
fix a period of 15 minutes for each witness. 

Now, if you were not among those witnesses whose names were 
given to me yesterday and this is an addition, I will have to see how 
we can work that out. But in view of the fact you are present and 
you are director of the Cambridge Medical Center, we will see that 
you have an opportunity to be heard. 

Now, are you speaking for the legislation ? 

Dr. Brusch. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GiNNs. Mr. Chairman, when you called Dr. Brusch's name 
yesterday I rose to inform you that he could not be here before 
Wednesday. I believe I made that clear. 

Tlie Chairman. Yes; I remember you did. I had forgotten that 
for the moment. So that does not create any problem for us to hear 
him this morning. 


The Chairman. Senator Hunt has just arrived in the committee 

Senator Hunt is a very busy individual and we will give him the 
opportunity of testifying at this time. 

Senator, are you for or against the bill ? 

Senator Hunt. I am opposed to the passage of the bill, Mr. 

The Chairman. Well, as I said before you came into the room this 
morning. Senator, we were hearing the proi^onents of the legislation 
today, but it is our usual custom to hear Members of Congress, and 
especially Members of the Senate who dignify our hearings by their 
presence, we might say, out of turn. So that I will ask the clerk to 
keep a record of the time that Senator Hunt utilizes and charge it 
against the opposition. 

Senator Hunt. Thank you veiw kindly, Mr. Chairman. I was not 
aware of the situation, otherwise I could have been with you earlier 
this morning. I appreciate a very great deal your consideration. 

The Chairman, You are entitled to be heard. 

Senator Hunt, ^ow, Mr, Chairman and members of the committee, 
I am here this morning to op])ose the enactment of H, R, 2341. As 
a Member of Congress I am op]30sed to bills which, to my way of 
thinking, encroach upon local rights. I think that is one of the effects 
of this bill. I believe that people in their own communities should 
have a right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to 
have their water supplies fluoridated. It is their children's health 


that is involved. If this bill were to be enacted, the Federal Gov- 
ernment would be telling States and local communities that they 
could not add fluorine to their local water supplies. In my judgment, 
the question of fluoridation of local water supplies is not a Federal 
question and I would therefore recommend that your committee 
decide adversely to H. R. 2341. 

On the other hand, gentlemen, as a licensed dentist who engaged in 
private practice for a good many years, 2 years in the Armed Forces 
and 12 years in private practice — I have a strong professional belief 
in the benefits to be brought to the public by the adjustment of the 
fluorine content of public water supplies. I have carefully studied 
the scientific literature on this subject and have concluded that the 
]Drocedure is both safe and beneficial. 

And, I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that this was not a prob- 
lem befoi-e the country at the time that I was practicing dentistry. 
The research work was just starting on this a few years after I gradu- 
ated from the university. 

In my own State of Wyoming, the capital city of Cheyenne has 
naturally in its water supply a fluoride ion content of about one part 
per million, the same as is recommended to be added to water-deficient 
supplies. The people of Cheyenne are justly proud of their healthy 
teeth, caused in large part by nature's munificence in providing this 
element of nutrition. 

Mr. Chairman, fluoridation of public water supplies has been ap- 
proved by every scientific society of recognized standing in the field 
of health. These include the American Dental Association, the dental 
societies of all 48 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the Canal 

Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association looks with great 
favor upon fluoridation of water and I am sure that the recommenda- 
tion of that great organization carries a lot of weight with reference 
to health matters before the Congi-ess of the United States. 

Also included is the Public Health Service, the American Academy 
of Pediatrics, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, 
the American Public. Health Association, the American Public Wel- 
fare Association, the Commission on Chronic Illness, the National 
Research Council, the American Hospital Association, the American 
Nurses Association, the Inter Association Committee on Health, the 
American Waterworks Association, the State and Territorial Dental 
Directors, the American Society of Dentistry for Children, the Amer- 
ican College of Dentists, the dental section of the American Associa- 
tion for the Advancement of Science, and numerous State and county 
medical societies. 

I should like to interpolate, Mr. Chairman, by saying that surely 
these great scientific organizations with tremendous research facilities 
at their command would not recommend anything having to do with 
the liealth of the people of the United States if they diet not believe 
wholeheartedly in what they were recommending. 

On these grounds, therefore, (a) That this is a local problem which 
should be determined locally; (b) as a dentist familiar with the prev- 
alence of dental caries who would like to see its incidence diminished 
by the use of community water fluoridation ; and (c) because its safety 
and efficacy has been endorsed by so many eminent scientific associa- 
tions, I Urge you to vote against H. R. 2341. 


I am not going, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to overwhelm you with 
statistics on the prevalence of dental caries nor attempt to say what 
will be said more effectively and factually, of course, by the scientists 
who will testify before you. But, I do want to assure you that, as a 
practicing dentist, I have seen and treated a good many thousands of 
cavities in teeth. 

I have never known a tooth in which decay had begun to get better 
by itself, or for that matter for the decay process to stop until it was 
treated by a dentist. 

Fluorine added to the water supply will not stop decay which has 
alread}' begun but it will prevent in future generations the widespread 
prevalence of dental decay that we know today. It will save eventu- 
aUy, might I say to the committee, literally millions of dollars to those 
who would in the future need dental care, if the water is not pro])erly 
fluoridated; but over and above what E have said to the committee, 
it will prevent suffering; it will prevent malformed bone structure of 
the oral cavity, due to early loss of permanent teeth, and we will pre- 
ment many facial distortions. We will be able in so many, many cases 
to make for a more pleasant appearance of the face, if we do not have 
the distortion of the oral cavity of the bone structure. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the conmiittee, as I 
walked over here this morning, I passed that Avonderful statue placed 
by the State of Georgia for Dr. Crawford Long who in 1842 first suc- 
cessfully demonstrated the use of sulfuric ether in general anesthesia. 

My point is this, Mr. Chairman, at that time certain publications, 
and from the pulpit, the use of general anesthesia was rather generally 

Prior to that, a few years, Dr. Horace Wells, a dentist, first success- 
fully used nitrous oxide, and then the same hue and cry went up from 
certain people in the country. 

I also definitely remember reading when we first started in our 
public schools, especially, and even before that, when we were com- 
batting the most, perhaps the most prevalent disease at that time, the 
disease of smallpox, the vaccination for the prevention of that disease 
was frowned upon widely and generally and, Mr. Chairman, even 
doAvn to today there is some opposition to vaccinating our children 
for smallpox. 

I think, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the opposition to the 
fluoridation of our water supplies today falls to some extent within 
the same category that I have just mentioned with reference to small- 
pox and anesthesia. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the 
time you have so generously given me. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Heselton. Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chairman. Mr. Heselton. 

Mr. Heselton. Senator, you mentioned the fact that Cheyenne's 
water supply had a natural supply of fluorine. Is it in quantities 
similar to the quantity that is advocated be placed in waters which 
are without fluorine? 

Senator Hunt. It happens in this particular case to be almost 
identical ; I think exactly the same as is recommended in the fluori- 
dation of water, which is about one part per million. 

48391—54 10 


Mr. Heselton. Has there been any effort to try to defluoridate, if 
that is the proper term, to try to get the fluorine out of the water? 

Senator Hunt. I have never heard of it, sir. 

Mr. Hesp:ltox. Is the existence of natural fluorine rather wide- 
spread in Wyoming? 

Senator Hunt. Yes; and some situation, I would say to the gentle- 
man, that, of course, you can have ill effects from too much fluorine 
in the water. I happen to have practiced in one of those areas, a 
mountain community, where many of the teeth of the patients I took 
care of, or treated their teeth, there was overfluoridation of water, 
which is not beneflcial to the teeth. But, of course, the amount of 
fluorine that is put in our waters today is naturally very carefully 
and scientiflcally handled, so that there is no danger from that angle. 

The Chairman. Any further questions, gentlemen? If not, we 
thank you, Senator, for your appearance before our committee this 
morning and, by way of confirming the statement that you have made 
as to the viewpoint of the American Dental Society and the Ameri- 
can Medical Society, in the several State organizations, I would say 
that we have received many statements confirming what you have 
said from those different organizations, and the American Dental 
Society has witnesses here today to testify in opposition to the bill. 

Senator Hunt. Thank you. 

Mr. Priest. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Priest. 

Mr. Priest. Senator, I appreciate your statement this morning. I 
know you have been greatly interested in public-health matters of all 
types since you have been a Member of the Senate. 

I simply want to make a very, very brief observation, because I 
feel it is appropriate at this place. 

You stated that millions of dollars might be saved to the people 
of the country insofar as dental bills are concerned if fluoridation of 
water is permitted, provided, of course, that the people want it in 
the local communities. 

The dental societies that have opposed this bill — and I think most 
of them have, including the national association — have been enthu- 
siastic in their approval of the practice of fluoridation of water. 

I think that they deserve a great deal of credit for a very unselfish 
attitude in that respect, because the millions of dollars, of course, if 
you look at it from that viewpoint, the millions of dollars that the 
public might save, on the estimates that have been made, are millions 
of dollars that otherwise might be fees for dental services. 

I feel that the American Dental Association deserves a pat on the 
back, if I might put it that way, for what appears to me at least to be 
a most unselfish attitude; an attitude that is in the public interest; and 
I wanted to make that point a matter of record while you, as a repre- 
sentative of the profession and a Member of the Senate, are present 
before the committee. 

Senator Hunt. Might I just add to the statement that you have 
made, by saying that the most widely spread, the most prevalent of 
all diseases are dental diseases, and as you gentlemen well know, in 
World War II especially, the greatest number of men who were found 
ineligible for the draft were found to be so due to dental conditions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. 



The CiiAiKMAx. Our next witness will be Dr. Brusch. Dr. Brnscli, 
I note from a copy of your statement which has been presented to me 
that it is a very worthwhile statement ; but would take considerable 
time to tjive in its entirety. For that reason I call to your attention 
the limitation of 15 minutes for witnesses, so that you may utilize 
that time to the best advantage in whatever way you see ht. You 
may proceed. 

Dr. Brusch. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, those 
"who engage in the controversy that exists today on the fluoridation of 
connniuial water supplies must take into consideration the fact that 
fluorides are divided into two classes — natural, and inorganic or 

Organic fluorides, such as calcium fluoride, or calcium phospho- 
fluorides, are found in our daily foods and in drinking water in some 
areas. They are not readily soluble, and they do not dissolve readily 
in solution. Calcium fluoride 0.0016 gram per 100 cubic centimeters 
of water is the solubilitj'. 

It appears that in areas where there is naturally fluoridated water 
the individuals develop a certain amount of immunity to this water 
because the calcium fluoride here is found in company with other 

When drinking artificially fluoridated water, such as sodium fluo- 
ride, this immunity seems to be lost. Calcium fluoride is held to- 
gether by covalent bonds which gives it a certain chemical propei'ty. 

On the other hand, the artificial, or inorganic, sodium fluoride is 
a highly toxic, protoplasmic poison, freely soluble. The amount that 
is soluble is 4 grams per 10 Ocubic centimeters of water. This sodium 
fluoride is generally a byproduct of bauxite. If we break down fluo- 
ride, we find that it contains sodium 54.76 percent and fluoride 45.24 
percent. Artificial .sodium fluoride is very readily ionizable and 
diffuses readily in solution. 

The difference is apparent. The first is a natural product, calcium 
fluoride, which is held together by covalent bonds, and not very solu- 
ble. Artificial fluoride is inorganic, readily soluble, contains no 
covalent bonds; 1 part per million contains 0.25 miligram of hydro- 
fluoric acid to the glass of water. 


Individual variations run as high as several hundred percent in 
susceptibility to medication, foods, chemicals, drugs, and so forth. 
Since sodium fluoride is a protoplasmic poison affecting every cell in 
the body depending to an extent on the cells' carbohydrate demand. 

Each system is affected in a different way, for example, the skeletal, 
the miiscular, the vascular, the nervous, the circulatory, perspiratory, 
gastrointestinal, genitourinary tract, and reproductive organs. 

Whether as air, liquid, or solid, the amount and method by whicli it 
is taken into the system is of great importance, as fluorides are used 
in practically every industry, such as glassmaking, tanneries, bleach- 


eries, rubber works, varnish making, plastics, emory wheels, flux, 
and so forth. 

In air it is taken into the respiratory tract as dust or fumes. As a 
liquid it is taken in by beverages, milk, fluids and liquid ; as solids, in 
foods, vegetables, and fruits that have been sprayed or crops raised 
in a highly fluoridated area or fertilizers which contain high percent- 
ages of fluorine. 

In highly fluoridated areas, such as Texas and New Mexico, crops 
that are growni there and shipped to this area are fonnd to contain 
large quantities of fluorine. When boiled and cooked in water arti- 
ficially fluoridated, their fluorine content is greatly increased. 

For instance, if the water is 1 part per million, it becomes in 20 
minutes' boiling 2 parts per million. Such food as oatmeal, cereals, 
and so on, will absorb that additional concentration of artificial fluo- 
rides in addition to their own original high content of fluorine. 

The concentration is of importance because the greater the amount 
taken in, the greater amount is absorbed to a certain level. The dura- 
tion of time it stays in the system is also a factor in the amount that is 
absorbed by the system. The factors are in pH of the media is acid 
in the blood or in GI system, more of the fluoride is absorbed. 

If the fluoride is taken in with slow-absorbing food or with calcium, 
minerals, and vitamins, such as Bl, B2, or B6, less of the fluoride is 
absorbed. If the system, at the time the fluoride is taken in, has a low 
calcimn or mineral content, more of it is absorbed. 


Age of the individual is important because an infant or child with 
growing connected tissue absorbs more than an adult or senile person. 
The sex of the individual is a factor. Females or individuals of a 
high metabolism absorb more than males or those with normal metab- 
olism. People with a high temperature, such as those with a fever, 
absorb more. 

People with fevers and healthy people have different reactions. 
Sufi^erers from chronic diseases, like rheumatic fever, diabetes, heart 
condition, kidney trouble, and blood conditions, would absorb more. 

The weather, humidity, heat or cold, must be considered. The 
warmer the day, the greater the amount ingested. Change in weather 
conditions bring about a like change in the reservoir where the arti- 
ficially fluoridated water is stored. 

Again, the action of radioactive substances, the rays, such as cosmic 
rays, rays from the chemicals themselves, must be taken into con- 

The diet and nutritional makeup of an individual is another factor. 
Sodium fluoride has greater effect on the poorly nourished person 
who lacks calcium and minerals and vitamins, for they absorb more 
of NaF2 (sodium fluoride). 

In autopsies performed on normal and abnormal individuals there 
is a very minute difference. 











This shows that it is a problem of activity, rather than of concen- 


Essential parts of the body affected are: 

1. Calcium, minerals, connective tissues, bones. 

2. Enzymes, vitamins. 

3. Cells, endocrine glands. 

4. Metabolism, of carbohydrates, of proteins, and of fats. 

When the sodium fluoride is taken into the system, it is absorbed 
in the upper part of the small intestine, and is carried by the blood 
stream to the different cells, organs or tissues in the form of calcium 
fluoride, robbing the system of calcium. 

At the cell some of it may enter the cell or remain on the outside 
of it as an insoluble precipitate, affecting the feeding and the breath- 
ing of the cell. As a result, the cell may lose some of its functions or 
it may die. Some of the calcium fluoride is carried to the connective 
tissues and bones and here it is stored. Some of it is excreted through 
that gastrointestinal tract, some through the urinary tract, some 
through the perspiration, and one-tenth part is excreted through the 
salivary glands. 

We find that, if there is a deficiency of calcium in the system, it 
•will join up with other minerals, displacing them from their essen- 
tial use, disrupting their function. 

The femur bone contains 15 times more calcium fluoride than any 
other part of the body. 

On the enzymes we find that it joins up with metallic portion of 
the enzyme which is made up of vitamins and proteins. By so 
doing, it nullifies their action. Some of the enzymes affected are 
endolase phosphatase, lipase. We find that 1 part per 15 million will 
reduce the action of the enzyme, lipase, 50 percent. It affects enzymes 
adenosine triphosphate. 

It prevents the absorption or assimilation of vitamins Bi, B2, and 
Be, and it prevents the storage of vitamin C. It affects the cyrochrome, 
oxidation system of the cells. It interferes with certain enzymes of 
the kidneys which deal with absorption. 

It interferes with the action of the thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal, 

It counteracts the thyroxin of the thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal, 

It counteracts the thyroxin of the thyroid, and interferes with the 

{:)roduction of cortosterone. It prevents glycophosperic acid from 
)reaking down into phosphoglycerin acid and into lactic and peruvic 
acids. These are steps that are interfered with in carbohydrate metab- 

It interferes with the purine metabolism so that we get an accumula- 
tion of uric acid which mav form kidnev stones and ffout. There 


is an increase of cholosterol in the blood. If the fluoride joins with 
acetic acid — vinegar — it forms Huoroacetic acids which prevent the 
breakdown of citric acid into other forms. Citric acid is a poison 
which injures the heart muscle. 

The intake of 0.25 millograms of hydrofluoric acid in each glass 
of 1 part per million fluoridated water starts off the chain of body 
destruction. This strong acid in the stomach may or may not aggra- 
\ate ulcers. Then with a change of body functions as we have men- 
tioned with reference to normal activities it may produce allergic 

The recognized allergic symptoms of varying kind and degree 
manifested are : 

1. Vasomotor disturbances and rhinitis. 

2. Bronchitis and asthma. 

?>. Gastrointestinal disturbances. 

4. Dermatitis-hives-acne. 

5. Alopecia. 

6. Diabetes. 

7. Anemias. 


Fluoridation may slow growth of bones because of disturbance of 
phosphorus-calcium ratio, resembling arthritic changes. 


In studies done of about 500 cases, everyone tested was allergic 
to sodium fluoride from mild to severe reaction. Blood of people 
living in fluoridated water areas may take from 6 to 20 times longer 
to coagulate. 


Loss of calcium increases citric acid poisons, injures and destroys 
adesintriphosphate enzyme. Increased cholosterol of the blood may 
contribute to high blood pi'essure and cause hardening of the arteries. 

The sodium part of sodium fluoride and accumulates in tissues 
retaining fluid in cases of cardiac failure, kidney failure, liver failure 
or any form of ascites wherever it is coiuiterindicated. 


The uric acid accumulation or hydrofluoric acid, or injured enzymes 
and stone formation will impair or damage kidneys so they cannot 
excrete the fluorides or other waste. 


Diabetic symptoms such as high blood sugar and sugar in the urine 
can appear as injury to carbohydrate metabolism. 


Chronic fluorine poison affects the section of the brain concerned 
with volatile and the will to resist. The same area is affected by 
hypnotism. Inhibition of phosphatase exerts progressive degen- 


erative chancres on the nerve tissne thr()vi<ihout the body by altering 
phosphorous calcium ratio and inhibitin*^ the utilization of vitamin 
Bi. It affects the cerebral area to a large extent. 

Experience on rats showed a marked deterioration in mental alert- 
ness, accompanied by a state of passiveness and bewilderment. 


There is a question of increase in eye diseases due to artificial fluori- 
dation. In Washington, D. C, fluoridated without legislation or 
permission, more cases of glauconui are being reported. As yet there 
are no definite statistics. 


Experiments show that sodium fluoride in drinking water shortened 
the lives of animals with a tendency to cancer. 


In concentrations less than 1 part per million fluorine caused mot- 
tling in 33 percent of the child population of Salt River Valley, 
United States of America (Smith, Smith, P'oster 1938. Bull. Univ. 
Arizona 61). 

The Pago Indians' School showed a lOO-percent mottling of teeth 
from drinking fluoridated water 1 part per million. 


Diet, vitamins, antibiotics, dental hygiene, and lessened acid in the 
mouth will give far better results than any other program. Brushing 
the teeth after every meal and eating less candy and sweets will help 
stop decay. 

Sodium fluoride is not essential for body function, but calcium is, 
and we cannot have good teeth without calcium being present. 


Artificial fluoridation is fraught with dangers. Sodium fluoride 
is a highly toxic protoplasmic poison, 15 times stronger than arsenic, 
having radioactive properties. The smaller the dose, the greater the 

The danger lies not so much in injury to the somatic cells that can 
partly repair themselves, but to the embryonic cells that undergo 
mutation and will show up in generations to come. 


Massachusetts does not show premature births as among the first 
10 leading causes of death. 

The ratio is 26.7 percent average throughout other sections of the 

In Texas the ratio is 35.1 percent ; in New Mexico, 55.9 percent. 
Both of these States are highly fluoridated areas. 

We know that malnutrition will prevent conception, or delay it. 
Plus fluoridation it would present a great danger to our birth rate. 



It is unscientific and impractical to prescribe a toxic substance for 
the duration of our life, as an experiment, whether we need it or not, 
against our will, and without being able to stop taking it if we want 
to do so. 


Artificial sodium fluoride is an inorganic, toxic, protoplasmic poison, 
easily ionizable and soluble, different from CAF 2, an organic not so 
soluble substance held together by covalent bonds found in nature. 

Artificial fluoridation affects every cell and system of the body : 

1. Calcium, magnesium, and other minerals. 

2. Connective tissue, bones, teeth. 

3. Enzymes 

(a) Endolase 

(b) Lipase 

(c) Phosphatase 

(d) Adenosinetriphosphate and other enzymes 

4. Vitamins Bi ; B2 ; Be ; C 

5. Endocrines 

(a) Tyroxin, thyrotropic 

(h) Ephedrine 

(c) Cortosterone and others 

6. Metabolish and cytrocrome oxidation of cells; carbohydrates, 
proteins and fats. 

7. Cell oxidation interfered with causing cell destruction with 
disease and death. 

8. Mottled teeth — an indication of toxic content of sodium fluoride 
in the water. 

9. Wasteful procedure. Five-tenths of 1 percent of fluoridated 
water will be used for purpose intended ; 99% percent of it is wasted. 
For those who want it, there are many alternatives, such as tablets, 
tooth paste, and so forth. 

10. This forced experiment w^ith a protoplasmic poison which all 
must ingest, in mass medication without parallel in the history of 
medicine, without a doctor's prescription, can cause symptoms of dis- 
ease, such as allergy, internal and gastric upsets, such as colitis, 
blood conditions, gland and nervous trouble, diabetes, arthritis, 
muscular w^eaknesses, shortening life of cancer animals, hardening of 
the arteries, kidney troubles, and a long list of other serious illnesses. 

Mr. DoLLivER. I must caution the audience that we do not permit 
expressions of approval or disapproval, else we could easily get into 
chaos, unless such a rule is followed. Accordingly, you will please 
not express approval or disapproval of what any witness says. 

Now, are there any questions ? 

(The paper The effects of Fluorides on the Human Body, by Dr. 
Bruscli is as follows:) 



TuE Effect of Fluorides on the Human Body 
By Cbarles A. Brusch, B. S., M. D. 


Calcium fluoride, calcium phosphofluoride 

Held together by covalent bands 

Slightly soluble 

Occur in first mile of earth's crust 

The 20th most common element, fluorine is found in almost all foods : eggs, milk, 

cheese, butter, fish, soybeans, molasses, etc. 
Sodium phosphate (baking soda) contains 2,000-3,000 parts per million and 

tea contains 70-500 parts per million 


Sodium fluoride 

Inorganic, toxic, protoplasmic poison 

Highly soluble 


1 part per million in a glass of water contains 0.25 milligrams of hydrofluoric 

Byproduct of bauxite clay and aluminum 




Emery wheels 

Flux in foundries 

Glass etching 

Insect and roach powder 


Rubber work 








Fluorescent lighting. .. 

Chemical rays 






Poison gas.. 

Other beverages. _ 

Sprays ' 

Hydrofluoric acid ' 

Dental applications. 


' Absorbed by skin contact. 


Age : Infants and elderly people absorb fluorides most readily. 

Amount : Small amounts frequently ingested mean greater absorption. 

Duration : The longer fluorides remain in the intestinal tract, the greater the 
absorption. Example: fatty foods. 

Environment: Higher temperature causes greater absorption. (Climate.) 

Form : Absorption is 4 times as great in water as in solid form. When water 
is boiled 10 minutes, concentration is doubled. In acid media, fluorides are 
more readily absorbed. 

Nutrition : Deficiency of calcium, minerals, or vitamins causes greater absorp- 

Physical condition: Sickness (diabetes, rheumatism, kidney disorders, etc.)» 
infections or fever cause greater absorption. Tooth decay is greater after ill- 
ness. Also, per.sons with higher metabolism have greater absorption. 

Sex : As a rule, the female absorbs more readily than the male. 



Soil : The higher the fluorine content of the soil, the more fluorides are ab- 
sorbed by food. 

Type : Artificial fluorides are 2,500 times more soluble than natural, natural 
dissolving at a rate of 0.0016 gram, and artificial at a rate of 4 grams, In 100 
cubic centimeters of water. 

Composition of the human body 




(a) Protoplasm 

(ft) Water and minerals 
Vital organs 

Blood and lymph glands 

Sulfur, etc 

Skeletal structure 

Teeth (organic and inorganic) 

Circulatory system 
Gastrointestinal tract 
Genitourinary tract 
Muscular system 


Nervous system 
Reproductive system 
Respiratory system 
Skeletal structure 


Body minerals : Fluorine acts as a flux combining with calcium, magnesium, 

Bones and skeletal structure : Effects are 15 times greater in femur than in 

Cells : Interferes with breathing or feeding of cell ; retards or destroys other 
processes ; induces capillary constriction. 

Connective tissue : Impairs functions. 

Enzymes : Destroys adenosinetriphosphate, endolase, lipase,* phosphatase, 
urase, other enzymes. 

Glands: Interferes with functions of cortosterone, epedrine, thyrotropic, 
tyroxin, other hormones, liver. 

Metabolism: Interferes with assimilation of carbohydrates, fats, proteins; 
cytrocrome system of oxidation of cells. 

Teeth : Mottled teeth, early sympton of toxic poisoning, occur in about 1 out 
of 5 cases. As little as 0.4 part per million fluoride will cause mottling in about 
33 percent of cases. 

Vitamins : Destroys or prevents absorption of vitamins Bl, B2, B6, and C. 

Bacteria Fungus "Virus 

(Always present in or on the body) 

when body resistance is broken down through deficiency of nutrition and 

oxygen — 


Produce : 


Note. — Susceptibility to allergy in individuals varies by several hundred 

^ One part diluted to 15 million will cause 50 percent destruction of lipase. 



Fluorides a causative fartor in — 


Allergies ' (Loss of immunity); 

Dermatitis, acne, eczema, hives 

Ci a; t roin testinal disturbances -- - 

Kespiratory disorders: Asthma— bronchitis 

Vasomotor disturbances and rhinitis 

Alopecia - ----- --- 

Blood and circulatory disturbances: 

Fluorine circulates through body as calcium flucridc 

Cholesterol increased 

Coapiilation may he retarded 6 to 20 times 

Anemia— leukemia 

Disturbances of circulation .. _ 

Bone disturbances: Mild to severe changes resembling 

Cancer: Experiments show that fluorides shorten the life of 
animals having cancerous tendencies. 

Diabetes: Increase of sugar in blood and urine 

Edema (from various causes): .Aggravated by sodium re- 
Genitourinary and kidney: 

Accumulation of uric acid 

Injury to enzyme (urase) 

Stone formation - 


Functions impaired due to— 

Loss of calcium... 

Increased citric acid poison .- 

Destructiou of enzyme (Adeaosinetriphosphate)..-... 

Multiple sclerosis _ 

Muscular disturbances - 

Nerve disorders : Degeneration of nerve tissue 

Reproductive disorders: 

Premature birth 

Sterility, due to nutritional deficiency, mineral imbal- 
ance, elTects of fluorine on embryonic tissue (hereditary). 
Virus infections, due to lack of immunity: Chicken pox, 
colds, encephalitis, measles, mumps, poliomyelitis, etc. 

' In over .500 cases tested by the Healy blood allergy method, all were found allergic to sodium fluoride 
The allergies ranged from miid to severe. 

Itching and swelling. 

Belching, burning pain, diarrhea, colitis. 

Coughing, shortness of breath. 

Running, eyes. 

Loss of hair. 

Loss of appetite, weakness, retarded 

Tingling of extremities, coldness, numb- 

Weakness, loss of weight, increased thirst 
DiflQculty In voiding, swelling of legs. 

Shortness of breath, weakness sudden 

Weakness, loss of function. 
Muscular weakness. 

Mental deterioration, passiveness, bewil- 

Temperature, fever, chills. 


Small amounts of sodium fluoride are very active and, if constantly ingested, 
may cause chronic tlunride poisoninjr, which would impair the health, and 
shorten life. 

Note. — The Council of Chemistry, Pharmacy, and Nutrition of the American 
Medical Associaticm. has stated that fluoridated water should not be used with 
certain foods which contain a liiLih percentage of fluorine, such as hone meal, 
cereals, lozenges, etc.. and that in warm climates, where people drink larger 
amount of water, fluoridated water must l)e u.sed with caution and tlie dosage 
cut down to less than 1 part per million, so that toxic symptoms such as 
mottling of the teeth will not develop. 

Is it reasonable to .suppose that adding fluorine to our drinking water will 
prevent tooth decay? If so, why is it that in so many cases we can get s<i 
much fluorine into our systems and still have decayed teeth? Or why is it that 
some people who have no fluorine at all in their drinking water have good teeth? 
Since we cannot predict who will or who will not develop mottled teeth, it 
would seem more parctical to give increased attention to proi>er nutrition and 
dental hygiene, rather than run the risks entailed in fluoridation. 

The artiiicial fluoridation of our public water supply with sodium fluoride, 1 
part or l.o parts per million, is being sought for the sole of preventing de- 
cay of teeth in children. Since no contagious tlisease is involved, liowever, this is 
not a public health problem Imt a personal matter. Such fluoridation would im- 
pose upon the entire populati(Mi the consumption of a highly toxic protoplasmic 
poison in small from the time before we are born until the time we die. 
This drug, against which there is no antidote, would be forced on all, regardless 


of their environment, regardless of their physical condition, and regardless of 
their moral atitude — whether or not they wish to take this drug. No one would 
be able to stop taking it, should he so desire. At the same time, there would be 
created a false sense of security, a false impression that we do not need to con- 
sider the predisposing causes, the bacterial, nutritional nor the hygienic pro- 
cedures imder medical and dental care which are essential for good teeth. This 
experiment would be expensive, impractical, unconstitutional, and unscientific. 

It is important that this issue be settled here. It does not belong in a com- 
munity, because a community is not able to receive the facts on both sides of 
the issue, and because several communities using the same water supply may 
disagree on whether or not lluoride should be placed in the water. This is a 
national problem, because the whole population is to be tiuoridated. We must 
demand the protection to which we are entitled under the Pure Food and Drug 
Act, which prohibits the contamination of our foods with poison and the pollution 
of our water supply. 

Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 270, section 2, and also chapter 111. sec- 
tion 160, make fluoridation illegal, but appeals to the State official responsible 
to enforce these laws go unanswered. 

We must realize that this is just a wedge and that if we adopt or submit to 
this type of experimentation, it will be only a forerunner of other measures 
interfering with our professional, industrial, and ordinary American way of life. 
If we fail to pass H. R. 2341, known as the Wier bill, we shall be following the 
customs and experiments of the dictators and the Communists. We shall no 
longer he freemen. 

Mr. Priest. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DoLLivEK. Mr. Priest. 

Mr. Prie8t. I think with all of your scientific knowledge, yon have 
some sympathy with Members of Congress who sit through these 
hearings, hearing equally eminent scientists say that certain things 
are unscientific, and then others come in and say that they are very 
scientific. I am sure that you can appreciate the provision of a con- 
gressional committee that does not have, of course, the time to make 
the very serious and long-range studies for itself that you do, but 
must depend in the end, in making its decision, on the weight of the 

It may be that the committee is perhaps more able to decide the 
constitutional and legal questions involved than they are the scientific 
questions involved, and as you well are aware, the scientists them- 
selves seem to be considerably divided on this basic question. 

I just want to ask you one technical question. I have studied a 
little chemistry at one time. On page 1 of your statement there is an 
■expression there, a word, that does not mean anything to me, and 
perhaps it should. I know you can well explain it. It is down about 
the fourth paragraph, tlie word "covalent" — covalent bonds. You 
state : "Calcium fluoride is held together by covalent bonds which gives 
it a certain chemistry property." 

That sentence does not mean anything to me, and I would like for 
you to explain it to me, please. 

Dr. Beusch. There is a difference between ariificial inorganic 
sodium fluoride and natural calcium fluoride or calcium phospho- 
fluoride. Calcium phospho-fluoride is found in plants. The plant 
derives its fluoride from the soil and converts it into calcium fluoride 
or calcium phospho-fluoride. When man or ar.imal consumes this 
plant life the fluoride is taken up in this form. This natural form 
is held together by covalent bonds, meaning that nature has caused 
a. union or combination between the calcium and the fluoride that 
makes it difficult to be broken down and consequently only slightly 
soluble; 0.0016 grams is soluble in 100 cubic centimeters of water. 


This is not readily ionizable ; that is, it does not disperse readily in 
solntion. It is not as toxic. On the other hand, artificial sodium fluo- 
ride, which is produced as a byproduct, is not held together as strongly 
as nature's method. It has no covalent bonds; therefore it disperses 
readily in solution. 

It is highly ionizable and toxic ; 4 grams will dissolve in 100 cubic 
centimeters of water (2,500 times more than natural) . It is not found 
in plant or animal in this form. When taken into the system the 
fluorine combines with calcium or other metals. One glass of arti- 
ficial fluoridated water (1:1M) contains 25 milligrams hydrofluoric 
acid. This is one reason why we can take so much of the natural 
fluorides daily and not be afl'ected as readily as we would be by taking 
in minute doses of artificial sodium fluoride 1 : IM to 2 : IM. 

Calcium fluoride is the form that is found in the body. To the 
body sodium fluoride is an unnatural combination which the body 
has to break down. The fluoride joins with body calcium and is 
carried by the blood stream to the body cells. Some penetrates the 
cells and some does not. The amount ingested and the individual 
susceptibility determines the toxicity to the system. 

Mr. Priest. Thank you sir, that is all. 

Mr. Beamer. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that that is the 
longest definition of an eight-letter word I ever heard. 

Mr. Priest. As I gather, then it is your contention and that of your 
organization that natural fluorine is not as detrimental, from your 
viewpoint, as when artifically added because of the difference in 

Dr. Brusch. Yes. 

Mr. Priest. That is all, thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? If not, we thank 
you. Dr. Brusch, for your appearance and for the testimony you have 
given the committee. 

I would like to call attention to the fact that the time available for 
the proponents is drawing to a close and growing short, and so that 
if anyone is called upon to define a word, he would probably be serving 
in the interest of limited time if he would answer as succinctly as 


The CiiAiRjMAX. The next witness is Mrs. Vera E. Adams. Mrs. 
Adams is president of the National Committee Against Fluoridation, 
"Washington, formerly Citizens Committee on Fluoridation. Mrs. 

Mrs. Adams. Mr. Chairman, we grew so much we had to change 
our name to fit our functions. 

Mr. Chairman, I have cut my statement and then cut it some more, 
so that it looks like a game of hopscotch now, but I will try to make it 
as brief as possible to bring out what I feel I want to bring out 

The Chairman. Well, Mrs. Adams, your statement will be made a 
part of the record in full and, of course, you will observe the limita- 


tion as to time, and the clerk will call attention to the time when it has 

Mrs. Adams. The time has come when the people of this country— 
a Nation whose very cornerstone is the integrity and liberty of the 
individual citizen — seems to be faced with the necessity of defending 
themselves from their own Government in order to preserve that indi- 
vidual liberty. They are forced to defend themselves against a pro- 
gram of mass medication federally instituted, promoted, and 
financed — the program of fluoridation of our Nation's water supplies. 

And we who are thus trying to defend ourselves are even being 
accused of some sort of mercenary motives in our opposition to this 
compulsory doctoring. We are being asked "Who is furnishing all 
the money for this campaign against fluoridation?" I will tell you 
who is furnishing the money. It is just plain, ordinary citizens who 
are jealous enough of their inheritance of liberty to man the watch- 
towers, spot danger, and give warning, and the money used in this 
cause comes out of the pockets of these ordinary, wage-earning citi- 
zens. Unfortunately, the sum at their disposal is infinitesimally small 
compared to the millions which are being poured by the Government 
into its channels of propaganda. 

This committee, which has recently changed its title to National 
Committee Against Fluoridation, Inc., was organized in May 1952, 
and made an effort through an appeal to our District Connnissioners 
to obtain at least a delay in introduction of the process here until the 
totally uninformed residents could learn something of the pros and 
cons of the subject. 

This formal appeal has never been honored with so much as an 
acknowledgement. And in direct contradiction of the much-empha- 
sized assertion that each city, town, and community must decide this 
question for itself, the voiceless and voteless taxpayers of the District 
of Columbia have been absolutely ignored, and were simply assigned 
the role of guinea pigs in a test case. 

As now re])resenting a constantly growing national opposition to 
fluoridation of drinking water, this committee strongly urges that 
H. R. 2341. a bill to protect tlie public health from the dangers of 
fluoridation of Avater, be approved by the Congi'ess. We- urge this 
on the following grounds : 

(1) We believe that fluoridation is unconstitutional. 

(2) We believe that fluoridation is illegal. 

(3) We are convinced that fluoridation is ethically immoral. 


The Constitution — the document itself — as written and preserved 
in our national archives with an almost sacred care, may be compared 
to the steel structural framework of a building. It is the architectural 
foundation and skeleton of a living, human edifice planned by the 
pioneers of liberty in a new country, whose first timid gropings to- 
ward self-government under freedom were inspired by an inborn 
spiritual instinct which is the heritage of every man, and a faint 
])rophecy of the "glorious liberty of the children of God" referred 
to in the Scriptures (Romans 8:21). 


This is sonietliina which is utterly intano:ihle, but indestructible, 
and which no amount of unjust domination or even enslavement can 
completely crush or kill. It is this spirit of our Constituticm which 
is, or should be, the real o-overning i)rinci])le in our free land, and if 
this spirit is not cherished and j)reserved, the letter will prove to be an 
inadequate safeouard. In many ways we seem to be gettin<;- further 
and further away from this spirit, and the lofty principles embodied 
in it. 

As one of our keen ncAvswriters has said: 

Most Americans can see that Soviet tyrannies in Eastern Germany and else- 
where menace their own freedom. But fewer can see that growing disreirard 
of principles of human dignity embodied in the American ix)litical heritage 
is a darkening cl(»u(l on the Republic's horizon. 

In ao-reement v.itli this is a statement by Judfre Elias F. Shamon, 
special justice of Boston Muncipial Court, which appeared in the 
Boston Sunday Post of April 4, 1954 : 

Some of our hiiih court judges are injecting into their decisions a wave of 
secularistic thinking which is as insidious as the Communist menace. * * * 
There are statements in these decisions which declare that all concepts are 
relative — including truth and morality — and nothing is absolute. * * * The 
thought that all concepts are relative affects us deeper than the mere logic in- 
volved. Our Government is based on the assumption that there are certain 
absolute concepts, referred to in the Declaration of Independence as the "laws 
of nature and of nature's God." The concept of God is certainly not a relative 
one. The concept of truth is certainly not relative, and to say that man is en- 
dowed on birth by his Creator with certain inalienable rights is certainly not a 
relative conceiit. * * * It is totalitarianism to hold that morality and customs 
are changeable as the times, becaiise if we siibscribe to this doctrine, we mvast 
6ay that the will of the majority makes right and what was true yesterday 
may not be true tomorrow — it all depends upon who is in power. * * * It 
means that the state — the sovereign — can look over a r)erson"s home, decide 
to take it without benefit of eminent-domain proceedings and tell the owner 
that his rights of property are subordinate to the will of the sovereign. 

As an example of such an insidious decision is that rather recently 
ofiven out by a Jiulcfe Artl in Cleveland, Ohio, who, in tryino; to prove 
fluoridation justified, said: 

A person's constitutional right to treat bis health as he deems best, and of 
parents to raise tht^ir children as they deem best, and to be free from medical 
experimentation and to exercise freedom of religion are all subordinated to the 
common good. 

He leaves with us the implication that the "common "rood"' is to be 
determined and defined solely by the state. In the case of fluorine 
in drinking water, it is the state (alias the Public Health Service) 
which is decreeing what is for the "'common good." One more step, 
and the state owns the child, and the individual, even as in Russia. 

We l)elieve that the first amendment to the Constitution is vio- 
lated b\' this program of compulsory mass medication and mass 
l^rescription. As Dr. Paul Manning has said in his Case Against 
Fluoriclation : 

Fluoridation of the public water suivply violates the fundamental principle 
of human rights and dignity — the principle that no person or agency shall have 
authority over the body of a human being other than himself. 

Some of our legislators, in State and city, are assuming powers 
which they do not actually and rightfully possess. It is evident that 
neither the State nor the Federal Government has any possessive 
right over the body, or mind, of the individual citizen just so long 


as that citizen is doiiio- nothing which miglit endanger the health and 
well being of other citizens, and so long as there is no emergency 
which would require the application of special measures. 

Will any reasonable person attempt to claim that tooth decay is a 
national emergency, an epidemic, or even a contagious disease? Let 
the authorities, under the direct inspiration of the Public Health 
Service, are seeking to apply emergency tactics and police power 
to combat it. 

Dr. Gordon Leitch, chairman of the public policy committee, 
Oregon State Medical Society, in the medical journal, Northwest 
Medicine, for March of this year, referring to the fallacious state- 
ment that fluoridation is basically to dental caries as chlorination is 
to the enteric diseases, such as typhoid fever, has this to say: 

It is here the plausible comparison breaks down, and the efforts of public- 
health officials begin to take on a different hue. When they step from the 
bounds of communicable and contagious disease, they step out of their legiti- 
mate, well-recognized field, into the I'ealm of medical thex-apy, whether pre- 
ventive or curative, where the rights of individuals are of paramount importance 
and far transcend the interest of the public. Police power of the state, from 
which stems public-health authority, has no place in the prevention or treatment 
of a disease which harms only the victim thereof. 

In the Hastings Law Journal, volume IH, spring issue 1952, in 
an article Comments — Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies, by 
James B. Thompson, we have the following : 

Pound, in Interests of Personality (28 Harvard Law Review 343, 349, 355, 
1915), classified this inalienable right of the individual as "interests of per- 
sonality — the individual and spiritual existence." He divides the interests in 
the physical person into five categories : "Immunity of the body from direct 
or indirect injury ; preservation and furtherance of bodily health and immunity 
of the will from coercion ; freedom of choice and judgment as to what one will 
do." These three have long been recognized. The other two are products of 
the progress of civilization, namely : "Immunity of the mind and nervous system 
from direct or indirect injury, and the preservation and futherance of mental 
health ; and freedom from annoyance which interferes with mental poise and 
comfort." * * * These interests, within limits, shall be recognized legally and 
given effect through the force of the state. It would seem that if it was up 
to the state to give force and effect to these rights, it should not be allowed to 
invade them itself. Such seems to be the case with fluoridation. 

In the case of TomUnson v. Armour <& Co. (75 N. J. L. 748, 70 
Atl. 311, 317) , the court said : 

Among the most fundamental of personal rights, without which man could 
not live in a state of society, is the right of personal security, including the 
"preservation of a man's health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy 
it." (Blackstone's Comm. vol. 1, 129-134)- — a right recognized, needless to say, 
in almost the first words of our written constitution (constitution of New 
Jersey, art. 1, p. 1). 

In spite of the fact that this can be proved to be a federally con- 
ceived, promoted and financed program, we are often told that it 
is not a Government matter — that each local community must decide 
for itself, by referendum or vote — whether fluoridation should be 
adopted or not. We assert that no referendum, or even vote, is com- 
petent to define or decide the constitutional rights of each individual 
in a community. One person may heartily endorse a medicine, but 
regardless of his faith in it or belief in its efficacy, of how much he 
may want to recommend it to his neighbor, he does not have any 
right, or police power, to force that neighbor to take it, either by 
persuasion, by a voting machine, or by force. The moment he at- 


tempts to do this, he is infringing upon thiit neighbor's inalienable 
rights conferred by the Declaration of Independence and the Consti- 

The doctrine that "might makes right, and truth is a majority 
vote," is a dangerous one. In the matter of fluoridation of the 
drinking water, wliich is an indispensable article of diet, and neces- 
sary to life itself, no authority, local, State, or Federal, has any 
right to tell people, '"You're going to have fluorine in your water 
whetlier you like it or not." 

There should always be some individuals opposed to fluoridation 
even in places where a majority might ignorantly vote for it. A 
vote for fluoridation is always based on insufficient information on 
both sides of the question, and so cannot re[)resent an intelligent 
and considered judgment. And our citizens cannot hope to get 
information on both sides of this question from the proponents, as 
from their standpoint there is only one side. 

If there is only one side to this question, why is it that close to 400 
cities, towns, and communities have rejected fluoridation of their 
water supplies in one way or another, some after several years of 
trial, and some after it has been sneaked in on them secretly, but 
later exposed. These represent roughtly about 30 million of our 
po])ulation, surel}^ a cross-section too large to be ignored. 

The Hastings Law Journal above referred to further states that — 

tlie first amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress "shall make no 
law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The 14th amendment protects 
citizens or respective States similarly. In Cnvtu-cU v. Connecticut, the court 
reasoned that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the 1st amendment and 
is protected l>y the 14th amendment from State interference. The Court 
there reasoned that freedom of religion has a duel aspect : freedom to believe, 
and freedom to act exercising sucli lielief. The test is the weighing of the 
interest of the State against the right of the individual to exercise religious 

r>efore the interest of the State will outweigh the interest of the individual, 
there must be a showing tliat the exercise of the particular religious belief is 
of such a nature as to create a "clear and present danger," that it will bring 
about substantial evils that the State has the right to prevent. Dental caries 
creates no epidemic or emergency of contagious nature. Therefore, we have 
no "clear and present danger" or any evil at all. There is a failure to rebut 
the presumption of unconstitutionality. Consequently, it must stand that fluor- 
idation of public water is unconstitutional because in violation of freedom of 
religion. * * * Fluoridation of water is, therefore, in violation of State laws and 
the Federal Constitution. The more serious constitutional objections must 
be hurdled before a State validly may introduce fluoride into public water 

A majority opinion handed down by the Supreme Court in 1943 
contained the following significant statement : 

If there is a sixth star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no oflicial, 
high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, re- 
ligion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act 
their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, 
they do not occur to us. 

But wlien the people of this country, up to the number of approxi- 
mately 30 million, resist compulsory mass prescription and medication, 
which represents direct and deliberate interference with their per- 
sonal and bodily self-government, what happens? They are called 
names — all kinds of names — "crackpots, know-nothings," and worse. 

48391—54 11 


More than this, they are even the object of personal threats and insults. 
President Eisenhower, in his talk before the American Newspaper 
Publishers Association, said: 

If the day comes when personal conflicts are more significant tlian honest debate 
on great policy, then the flame of freedom will flicker low indeed. 

We cannot get the proponents of fluoridation to enter an honest 
and open debate ; they will talk only when they have the whole stage 
to themselves, and they always fix it so that they have the last word. 
The real reason is that they cannot give satisfying answers to the 
arguments so generally and logically being advanced against mass 
experimentation on whole populations with an admittedly unproved 
and possibly dangerous element. 

In the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in the District 
school segregation case, there is the following very pertinent passage, 
which is directly applicable to this present case of fluoridation: 

Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great pre- 
cision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty 
under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to 
pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. 

We ask. Are the people of this country free to pursue the full range 
of conduct which they may choose in regard to employing the method 
of treatment which they desire when they have actually poured down 
their throats a dosage of fluorine impregnated water which they do 
not want, and do not need ? Is this liberty under law ? 


In January of this year, District Court Judge James U. Galloway, 
of Shreveport, La., issued an injunction halting that city's move to 
put fluorine into the drinking water, from which the following is 
quoted : 

* * * medication, in lay understanding, includes prophylaxis or preventive 
measures, when applied to the individual * * * Considering the end results 
that are sought, we cannot escape the conclusion that it is a form of medication, 
or at least a scientific treatment or a sort of hydrotherapy, by way of ingesting 
these mineralized waters, of and for the children of the community under 12 
years of age * * * No person or segment of the population having that condi- 
tion (dental caries or tooth decay) can on that account have any adverse effect 
on the health, dental or otherwise, of the general public or of any segment 
thereof. We repeat, in our opinion this is not a matter of public health. It is 
strictly within the realm of individual and personal dental health and hygiene, 
within which each person should be free to choose his course for himself and those 
for whom he is responsible in the family relation. To this field, the just powers 
of the Government do not extend. 

In an Associated Press dispatch of September 14, 1952, President 
Eisenhower was quoted as saying : 

I am opposed to a federally operated and controlled system of medical care 
which is what the administration's compulsory health-insurance scheme is, in 
fact. It would destroy things that are essential to high-grade medical service. 
For instance, we must preserve the completely voluntary relationship between 
doctor and patient. This means that there must be no intermediary — and that 
is what the Government becomes if the doctors get paid, not by the patient, but 
by the Government. But still more important is the effect of compulsory methods 
on the patients. * * * The patient may fear — and no doubt correctly in many 
cases— that he would receive regimented, assembly-line treatment instead of care 
that is tailored to his individual needs. 


Now, bearing in mind the almost limitless variation of individual 
phyLiical disposition and susceptibility, how about dosing our drinking 
water, every drop of it available, with a fixed percentage of a highly 
toxic chemical such as fluorine and made the dosage uniform and gen- 
eral, regardless of the amount consumed, amount of fluorine taken in 
from other sources, such as food, state of individual health, allergies, 
and so forth? Is this not assembly-line treatment at its worst? Is 
this "preserving the completely voluntary relationship between doctor 
and patient" which is so essential? Is not the Public Health Service 
an intruding intermediary here ? 

We may here point out that no local departments of health, or even 
local dental societies, have ever considered fluoridation sufficiently 
essential to the public health to take the initiative in ordering, or even 
advising, its adoption ; the inspiration and motive power have come 
solely and directly from the Federal Public Health Service. 

In this connection, we may point out that this is only the beginning 
of this regimented, assembly-line treatment. Dr. Gordon Leitch, of 
the Oregon State Medical Society, stated in the medical journal 
Northwest Medicine for March 1954 : 

* * * Considerable interesting information on the medication of community 
water supplies, of which the addition of sodium fluoride is but the current or 
initial possibility, has come to light since this question was first viewed. If 
American medicine would do the public a service it should recall immediately 
any and all endorsements pertinent to fluoridation and its hidden appendages 
which have been extracted from it. Then it should restudy the entire problem 
in all its ramifications and implications in the light of the evidence now 

And in an article entitled "A Year of Decision," in the same maga- 
zine for January 1954, Dr. Leitch says : 

While for the moment the proposal rests with fluoridation, if the theory la 
sound it is just as logical to add salicylates or cortisone to combat headaches 
or arthritis, or to add chlorophyll to ward off body odors. Indeed, the day might 
logically be anticipated when the pipelines of a city will be so laden with medi- 
cations deemed necessary by public health authorities bent on serving the masses 
that the medicated fluid will need intermediate booster pumping stations to see 
that it reaches its destiuees, at which time the medicated fluid will be good for 
caries, dandruff, and falling arches ; but we hate to think what it would be like 
when mixed with bourbon. 

In the Consumers' Research Bulletin of last March is the following 
quotation from the Medical Press, a well-known British journal for 
physicians : 

Unless the medical profession takes a firm stand, expediency will continue to 
triumph over caution and commonsense, and we may well be faced with irrever- 
sible results. * * * It is more than time for our present lethargy and inertia 
were replaced by an alert and suspicious vigilance and that all proposed and 
existing food additives were subjected to the sharpest scrutiny * * * else we 
may well spend the next generation in medicine trying to unscramble — 

the harm that has been done to the human organism by prevalent fac- 
tory practices in preservation, processing, and sophistication of foods. 
Water, of course, being an indispensable article of diet, and essential 
for life, must be classed as a food. 

Dr. V. O. Hurme, of the Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children, 
Boston, Mass., in a letter dated October 22, 1953, to a correspondent, 
has this to say : 

The proponents, as well as the opponents, of fluoridation generally overlook 
the fact that it is incumbent upon the proponents to prove, beyond all contention, 


that fluoridation is safe and desirable for 100,000 people out of 100,000 people. 
It is not necessary for the opponents to offer this proof, since they are not pro- 
posing to dose everyone in a community with a minute daily dose of a toxic 
*,*hemical, for which there is no known antidote. 

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1914 that it is incumbent upon the 
person who places poison in a food to prf»ve that it is not toxic; the burden is 
not upon the complainant to establish that fact. 

And further : 

I can assure you of the fact that the generally accepted principle of biologic 
variation is being ignored completely by the dental and medical groups which 
are sponsoring fluoride treatment of public water supplies. * * * The very 
nature of the fluoride problem calls for well-integrated medical research pro- 
grams, which may require at least 20 years to produce meaningful results. The 
insidiously cumulative effects of this halogen do not permit the making of hasty 
conclusions, if we aim to remain unemotionally scientific. 

But now after only a few years of experimenting, and on the basis 
of conchisions arrived at by what they themselves call association, 
i. e., variable, relative, and essentiall}" unscientific evidence, they are 
ready to go full steam ahead on the calculated risk streamlined special, 
full throttle and no stops scheduled, and let anyone who gets in the 
way beAvare. 

Cincinnati is a glaring example of how they are working. A year 
ago in February they had all the machinery set up and the date an- 
nounced for turning the valve, when a courageous radio commentator, 
by the name of Tom McCarthy (no relation) threw a monkey wrench 
into the whole works by revealing that there were actually two sides 
to this question, strange as it might seem, instead of just only one. 

The battle raged for 10 months, with Mr, McCarthy being threat- 
ened and intimidated, and even jDut olf the air once, but restored by 
popular demand, until in November of last year the people got the 
vote for which they had petitioned in unprecedented numbers, and 
stopped the program short by a large majority. 

Dr. Robert J. Mick, author of Large Facts That Are Kept in Small 
Print Relative to Fluoridation, says : 

I believe fluoridation of water is worse than an atomic bomb. Those injured 
by the atom bomb may get over their illness but those born with injuries caused 
by consumption of artificially fluoridated water will never get over the ill 


He declared the absolute true ill effects of artificially fluoridated 
water cannot be told for at least two generations, at which time it will 
be too late. Through research in conducing rat experiments into the 
lliird generation, use of fluoride developed cripples and paralysis of 

I believe the American Dental Association, of which I am a member, and any 
<>ther organization which has endorsed artificial fluoridation, will contribute 
to the greatest harm ever to befall the unborn children of the IJnited States. 

Our good neighbor, Canada, is having to fight the sale of this made- 
in- America product. In Saskatchewan and Alberta Provinces con- 
troversy is raging over the introduction of fluoridation. Mrs. C. R. 
Wood, member of the legislature from Stony Point, in Alberta, de- 
clared recently that it is "contrary to the right of each individual to 
choose what he or she shall take into their bodies by way of drugs or 
chemicals * * * and savors of totalitarianism.'' So strenuous has 
been the opposition that final plans for treating the water in both 


Regina and Saskatoon, two of the larg:est cities, have been postponed 
because of heavy signing of petitions for a vote. The people of Sas- 
katoon so resented what they term ''forcing Ihioridation down cur 
throats without our permission" that everything there also is being 
held up. 

We may well ask, Why all this opposition? Because tiuondation 
of drinking water is essentially an illegal procedure, and hurts people 
in tlieir most vulnerable point — their instinctive love of their rightful 
individual freedoui. It represents an assumption of authority on the 
part of a department of the Federal Government which is not real, and 
a brazen presumption of knowledge and wisdom which does not exist. 

And Avhat about the Federal Food and Drug Act, which is designed, 
l)resumably, to protect the health and lives of the people of this coun- 
try ? This act declared that it is unlawful to place a nonnutritive or 
deleterious substance in food or drink and imposes a fine of $5,000 or 
imprisonment or both. The famous Beer case in Massachusetts is a 
case in point. An indictment was returned March 7, 1945, against the 
Commonwealth Brewing Corp. and Leo Kaufman, treasurer and 
manager, Springfield, Mass. 

The violation of the pure food laws charged was: Adulteration, sec- 
tion 402 (a) (2), the product contained an added poisonous or dele- 
terious substance which was unsafe within the meaning of the law 
since it was not required in the production of the product and could 
have been avoided by good manufacturing practice. 

In that case the District Court Judge Ford ruled : 

The question is. Is flnorine itself deleterious? * * * i want to point out 
to you that it is entirely unimportant and irrelevant how much the qujantity of 
fluorine was which was added to the heer. The issue is, Was fluorine in some 
form added as an ingredient? * * *It is an added deleterious ingredient the 
statute denounces, not an added quantity of the deleterious ingredient. * * * 
I want to make this plain — that the quantity of fluorine added to the beer has 
no relevancy here. I think I miuht point out to you that there is a section of the 
Food iind J)rug Ast wl'ere the quantity contained in a food may be of considerable 
importance, and that is where it has lieen charged under section 402 (a) (1) of 
the statute which deals with adulterated foods where the deleterious substance 
has not been added * * *. Congress recognized that nature's products such 
as grain, salt, hop.s, water, contain poisonous substances in small amounts and 
that they were not a danger or evil so long as the poisonouis substance was not 
extracted by artificial process and added * * *. in the case of an added ingre- 
dient, quant'ty is irrelevant, and the only question involved where it is added is, 
Was it added? Was it deleterious? Was it unsafe? 

And now we see a strange procedure, and one which should be 
clearly explained. In July 1952, shortly after fluoridation was forced 
on the citizens of this city, this same Food and Drug Administration 
which made (lie laws on the citizens of this city, this some Food and 
Drug Administration which made the laws on the basis of which this 
Beer case was judged, gave out the following sudden statement of 
policy : 

The Federal Security Agency will regard water supplies containing fluorine, 
within the limitations recommended by the Public Health Service, as not action- 
able under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Similarly, connnercially 
prepared foods within the jurisdiction of the act, in which a fluoridated water 
supply has been u.^ed in the processing operation, will not be i-e'4arded as action- 
able under the Federal law becanse of the tluorine content of the water so used, 
unless the process involves a significant concentration of fluorine from the water. 
In the latter instance the facts with respect to the particular case will be 


Pertinent to this specific exemption of an illegal practice is a 
comment by Mr. G. S. Bratton, of the Anheuser-Busch Co. in St. 
Louis, who represents an unanswerable argument against fluorine in 
public water supplies. He says: 

There is a very litle actual long-term experience with fluoridated water in the 
large industrial cities. 

He states that wet-corn millers in the Kansas City and St. Louis 
area use tremendous quantities of water in processing 20 million 
bushels of corn annually, and they do not feel cheerful over the 
prospects of fluorine in the water. Mr. Bratton further says : 

Malt-syrup manufacturers are just as unhappy over their fate, since malt 
syrup made with fluoridated water may contain up to 8 parts per million of 

This is far above the margin of safety so confidently defended by 
the propagandists for fluoridated water. Also in the production of 
baker's yeast, it is not known what effect the addition of fluorine may 
have on yeast culture, but it is known that sodium silocofluoride is 
more toxic to yeast than sodium fluoride. 

But our food and drug authorities have now fixed it so that the 
propagandists for fluoridation have the green light — a sort of courtesy 
card or personal privilege to break the law, and only what they call 
a significant concentration of fluorine, which might mean death, would 
attract notice, and then not in time to save a victim. Only an autopsy 
would prove that an actionable amount of fluorine had been present 
in the water or food which killed someone who had every right to be 
protected by his Government. 

In view of the above facts, we ask you to judge whether this practice 
can be defended as being legal. 


We have just recently listened to an amazing statement. This 
statement was to the effect that the Public Health Service is not 
pressing the fluoridation program. Ask the nearly 400 cities and 
towns which have waged war to win their freedom from pressure 
for fluoridation what they think about such a statement. They know 
very well where the pressure is coming from. Any one who has had 
even a glimpse of the report of the Fourth Annual Conference of State 
Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's 
Bureau, held here in June 1951, would have to laugh at this state- 
ment. That report has already been brought to your attention by 
our Mr. Palmer. It is one of the most revealing documents ever to 
come from a Government agency, and is a story of intensive propa- 
ganda for mass medication. It was not, of course, ever intended for 
general public consumption. 

Mr. Robert L. Kern, editor of the News-Democrat, Belleville, 111., 

Whether or not it realizes the truth, the United States Public Health Service 
now has gone overboard to promote a scheme that conceivably might turn out 
to be an instrument of race suicide. 

The Public Health Service is putting out a tremendous amount 
of propaganda material for the promotion of fluoridation throughout 


the country. While they admit that fluoridation is an experiment — 
that they don't know the answers— and have to admit that the time 
period for such a vital experiment has not nearly been fulfilled, their 
promotion material gives no hint of any uncertainty, but presents 
the supposed good effects of this medication as proved and conclusive. 
Their high pressure salesmanship instructions on "How To Obtain 
Fluoridation for Your Community" contains a long list of "do's and 
"don'ts" to guide the promoters. 

Those who for good and conclusive reasons oppose fluoridation 
are dubbed "obscure scientists" or "self-appointed protectors of the 
public," and are supposed to get their information from "out-of-date 
and unrecognized medical dictionaries and encyclopedias." I wonder 
if they would put Thorpe's Dictionary of Applied Chemistry in this 
class. In volume V of that dictionary, under the discussion of fluorine, 
we find this : 

Both fluorides and fluosilicates are toxic and dironie poisoning may result 
from the presence of fluorides in drinking water * * * The use of silicofluorides 
for food preservation is illegal * * * Sodium fluoride is very poisonous, as 
little as 1 gram constituting a fatal dose. 

Now chronic poisoning results only from the long continued inges- 
tion of minute doses of a poison, and that is precisely the danger -^s^ith 
fluorine. This same promotion booklet goes on to say : 

Do not refer to fluoridation as "therapeutic," "medicative," artificial," 

Do not refer to fluoridation as "treatment of water," "mass medication," or 
"mass treatment." 

But in spite of the cautious do not's it is all of these things. 

It was Oscar Ewing who inaugurated the present intensive cam- 
paign to fluoridate the water not only of this country, but apparently 
of the world, if possible, as a supposed health measure. His yearly 
budgets are said to have been considerably over a billion dollars and 
during the years of his administration, in addition to huge sums spent 
for high-priced propagandists, for other personnel assigned to this 
project, and for advertising and propaganda material, some hundreds 
of millions of Federal tax money, as subsidies, were poured out to 
State and local health boards on condition that under detailed in- 
structions they would push this health program. 

From all over the country I have been getting letters now for 2 
years past, increasing in volume lately, all in the same tone — "They are 
trying to force fluoridation on us here, and we want to know how to 
fight it." One received on May '?> from a doctor in a little town in 
Wisconsin — Delavan — says : 

Fluoridation of the public-water system was started here some 8 or 4 years ago 
by State and local sponsoring pressure groups. It was connected up and put in 
actual use in the early fall of 1953. This was an arbitrary transaction without 
the benefit of referendum until some 6 months later at the April election. 
Those opposing fluoridation were denied access to newspapers which were 
attacking all opposition as "crackpots" * * *. Just before election, the Rotary 
Club, the PTA, the public school, one church, and neighboring newspapers were 
enlisted on the side of the sponsors, including promotional picture shows in the 
public library, PTA, the public school, and a church. 

At this time I prepared a two-page informative letter and mailed it out to 
600 voters 4 days before election. Results : Fluoridation was rejected 1,091 to 755. 
On the same day LaCrosse and Waterloo rejected fluoridation about 10 to 1 and 
Manitowoc rejected it by a comfortable and gratifying majority * * *. The 
vicious attack is still going on. Smear and discredit are the tools employed. 


We submit tliat it is unethical to institute treatment of whole 
municipal water supplies with fluorine compound without first gain- 
ing the consent of every person so treated. There are quite a number 
of cities and towns in this country where fluoridation has been started 
without the consent, and sometimes Avithout even the knowledge of 
the residents. Some of these are : Anchorage, Alaska ; Louisville, Ky. ; 
Salem and Beverly, Mass. ; Saginaw, Mich. ; Charlotte, N. C. ; Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. ; Nashville, Tenn. ; and Marshfield, Rhinelander and 
Stevens Point in Wisconsin. In Mount Dora, Flu., which voted out 
this mass medication by 3 to 1, after it had been in 2 years, the editor 
of the Mount Dora Topic cited information from an authoritative 
source in Washington to the effect that : 

The public can soon expect bills to be introduced into their State legislatures 
to make fluoridation compulsoi"y in every community that has a public water 
supply * * *. I have seen a release sent out from Washington by the propa- 
ganda machine of the proponents of this scheme which states that the only opixj- 
sition to water fluoridation in each State is a few scattered "crackpots" who 
only write spurious letters to the legislators and newspapers, and they call upon 
the legislators to "use common sense and throw those letters into your waste- 

This mass medication is unethical and immoral because it violates 
the fundamental right and privilege of every individual to select the 
physician who is to prescribe for him according to his own individual 
physical tendencies and condition. No two people are alike in their 
requirements of both types and quantities of remedies, and to treat 
165 million inhabitants of a country with a mass prescription is there- 
fore not only an absurdity, but a moral offense. 

In this connection I would like to quote a few passages from an 
address delivered on September 14, 1952, under the head of "The 
Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment," by Pope Pius 

Scientific knowledge has its own value in the domain of medical science no 
less than in other scientific domains, such as, for example, physics, chemistry, 
cosmology, and psychology. * * * But this does not mean tliat all methods 
or any single method, arrived at by scientific antl technical research, offers 
every moral guaranty * * *. There are well-defined limits which even medical 
science cannot transgress without violating higher moral rules. The confiden- 
tial relations between doctor and patient, the personal right of the patient to 
the life of his body and soul in its psychic and moral integrity are just some of 
the many values superior to scientific interests * * * jjj ^he first place it must 
be assumed that, as a private person, the doctor can take no measure or try 
no course of action without the consent of the patient. The doctor has no 
rights of power over the patient other than those which the latter gives him, 
explicitly or implicitly and tacitly. * * * We come back to the question : Can 
public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the 
doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and 
the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures 
when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of 

In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even 
suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic 
integrity? To forestall an objection, we assume that it is a question of serious 
research, of honest efforts to promote the theory and practice of medicine, not 
of a maneuver serving as a scientific pretext to mask other ends and achieve 
them with impunity. * * * Insofar as the moral justification of the experi- 
ments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordina- 
tion of the individual of the community, of the individual's welfare to the com- 
mon welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. 

It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to use- 
fulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man. * * * Now 


medical experiments — the subject we are discussing here — immediately and 
directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, 
of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle we have cited, public 
autliority has no power in this sphere. 

It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from 
tlic state, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts 
uiKin the organism of the individual in the "interests of the community." For 
tlii'ii he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public 
p Mwer. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, 
save * * * as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make 
his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind, or of a lunatic. 

We submit, therefore, that the present program of fluoridation of 
drinking water is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, that 
it is consequently illegal, and contrary to ethical morality ; also that 
there are unresolved doubts as to the safety of this program, as no 
adequate and conclusive experiments have been carried to their logical 
end to convince us that there is no possible danger to health to all 
types and ages of individuals. 

I would like to just mention that I have a copy of a letter put 
out by the American Dental Association under date of April 30 of 
this year, going to all members, urging them, each one, to write their 
Congressman and Senators and urge the opposition to this bill, giving 
personal reasons for it, and each member is to write five other dentists, 
doctors and dentists, and they are to do the same thing. 

And, one significant point is this, one of the points that they are 
told to emphasize is that they believe 1 to 2 parts of fluorine in the 
drinking water is advisable. Now, we have already gotten up to 
two parts instead of one, so there is no accurate gage of the amount 
that is to be put into the drinking water. 

The Chairmax. Your time has expired. 

Mrs, Adams. May I read one other paragraph ? 

The Chairmax. If somebody will yield. 

INIrs. Adams. I will noi take any more time then. I am sorry. 

Mr. Chairman, I have here quite a little volume of petitions. 

The Chairmax. You may read a paragraph if you have a special 
paragraph you wish to read. 

Mrs. Adams. Oh well, probably I might as well stop. I have here 
quite a little volume of petitions that have been sent to me from all 
over the country, from Sandusky, from Florida, from Ohio, and they 
wanted me to hand them in. I do not know whether this is the proper 
procedure or not, but they are all signed petitions. 

The Chairmax^. Well, of course, they could not be made a part 
of the record. That is our usual custom. 

For instance in the hearings held last week, I would say that there 
were at least 25,000 to 35,000 letters, and petitions, and telegrams 
that came in and you can readily see how we cannot give the right 
to some to put petitions in the hearings and deny it to others: but 
that Vv'ill be made a part of the file in this hearing, and will be given 
the attention of the committee when it considers the bill. 

Mrs. Adams. They just wanted to know that they were filed as 

The Chairman. Yes, thev will be filed and will be before the com- 
mittee when we give the bill our consideration. 

Mrs. Adams. Thank you. 

(The paper entitled, "Some Objections to Fluoridation," above 
referred to is as follows :) 


Some Objections to Fluokidation 

From a letter to Chemical Week, by Vera E. Adams, president, Citizens Com- 
mittee on Fluoridation, Washington, D. C, which appeared in condensed form 
under the heading "Water Tempest" in their issue of April 4, 1953 : 

Many angles seem to be entirely ignored by the proponents of fluoridation, 
and one cannot but marvel at the cocksure presumption and self-assurance of 
those who are now pounding their propaganda into the public mind with sledge- 
hammer insistence. Here are some of those angles : 

(1) The unconstitutionality of the mass medication of whole populations, 
savoring of totalitarianism. 

(2) The total disregard for the factor of individual susceptibility, which any 
reputable doctor deems most important, and which demands individual prescrip- 
tion and some knowledge of the patient's physical and even mental makeup. 

(3) The differing condition of health of individuals, many of whom may have 
organic diseases or predispositions toward abnormal physical conditions which 
would prevent the proper elimination of fluorine from the body at even an 
average rate, which is never complete. 

(4) The undetermined amount of natural fluorides consumed in food, as 
various foods contain various percentages of fluorine, in addition to any intro- 
duced into the water supply. 

(5) The impossibility of gaging the amount of water each individual will 
drink — 1 person perhaps consuming 5 or G times as much as another. 

(6) The effect of atmospheric and weather conditions on the safe percentage 
of fluorine to be added to the water supply — such as humidity, excessive heat, 
and quick changes in temperature. 

(7) The more than 99.5 percent of money wastage represented by the mass 
application of fluorine to the total water supply. Only a very small percentage 
of water is used for drinking, and a mere 10 percent of the population (children 
under 8 years) can possibly benefit up to a hypothetical .50 percent reduction in 
tooth decay. It is the hard-earned tax money of the people which is being poured 
down the drain in this absurdly costly project, and the people have already regis- 
tered their protest and will raise their voices still louder at the coming budget 

(8) The fact that 1 part per million is above the margin of safety scientifically 
arrived at in a study by the University of New Mexico in 1938, which quoted 
0.9 parts per million as the danger limit. (See A Study of the Occurrence of 
Fluorine in the Drinking Water of New Mexico, and the Menace of Fluorine to 
Health, August 1, 1938.) 

(9) The report of findings of the House Select Committee on Chemicals in 
Food and Cosmetics, which was designed to give the public the results of hearings 
held in February and March 1952. and which unanimously counseled caution and 
go slow in the introduction of fluorine Into public water supplies pending the 
conclusion of long-term experiments planned to show up any possible deletei'ious 
effects on the human system. 

(10) The known difference between naturally and artificiaaly fluoridated 
water, the first containing organic fluorides and the second inorganic fluorides 
which the human system cannot assimilate without robbing the body tissues of 
other necessary chemicals, or minerals. 

(11) The difference between natural calcium-fluoride found in water sources, 
and sodium-silico-fluoride, 2,200 pounds of which is being added daily to our 
water supply in Washington, D. C. 

Note. — A California correspondent writes. "Most people do not know that the 
grade of sodium-fluoride which is used in doping the water contains an adulter- 
ant which is arsenic." 

(At this point someone in the audience asked a question as to the 
method of procedure and the method of allottino; time. After informal 
discussion the following proceedings were had:) 

The Chairman, Well, you have understood, have you not, that the 
time is to be divided equally between the proponents and the oppo- 
nents, and you have to take that into consideration. That is all I have 
to say. 

(A further question was raised by a member of the audience in con- 
nection with time allotted. After informal discussion the following 
proceedings were had:) 


The Chairman. I do not know the point you are making, but you 
must agree, I think, that the committee must have the right to deter- 
mine for itself what witnesses will be called and in what order they 
will be called. While we do appreciate having the assistance of your- 
self and others in determining who are to be heard, we must proceed 
along those lines. 

That is the ruling of the Chair at this time. 

The next witness will be Mrs. Peder P. Schmidt. You may proceed, 
Mrs. Schmidt. 


Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: 

Point 1 : War on crime, and the destruction of this Nation from 
within by insidious w^ays, fluoridation the one here to be discussed, the 
most devilish of all ways concocted, the cleverest concealed, so far. 

We have now seen a demonstration of how far. 

I would like to show you liow long I have known about fluoridation. 

That paper was sent to every United States Senator in 1951. I 
will read this paragraph here. 

I am a native of Denmark, my husband likewise, as a child on my parents' farm 
in Jutland, over there, a person worked as a maid, substituting, wliile our regular 
girl was back in her own home due to illness in her immediate family. * * * 
This person, I learned later, was a man disguised as a woman. * * * This per- 
son told me a great deal, to remember as long as I should live, about world con- 
quest, enslavement, etc. 

This person also carried certain emblems, spoke Danish well, plus 
a number of other languages, tried every which way to be allowed 
to stay in Denmark, but could not, even tried unsuccessfully to be im- 

This person told me what was behind the happenings of the Rus- 
sian Revolution in 1905, and that, that same year, from behind, in 
the new land America, was organized the Rotarian movement, in a 
way to know what was going on in business around the world — much 
else — which up until today all have panned out as outlined then in 
1909, December, January 1910 — so since as an average person have 
followed politics with interest from the ground up and around the 
world, especially pertaining to real health, which politicians always 
leave out of the picture completely. 

Yesterday Congressman Wier whose district I live in tried to bar 
me from testifying. I come from Minneapolis. I am in the 17th 
month here working on this issue. While Wier did not want to intro- 
duce this bill, but I would not go back to Minneapolis and tell them 
the reasons that he gave. I just wanted a straight answer "Yes" or 
"No." So then he changed his mind and introduced a bill, but has 
continually worked against me ever since, and you saw the efforts 
here yesterday to put me out of testifying on this, by putting it under 
this district. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. Schmidt. Yes. 

The Chairman. There has been nothing said or done by Mr. Wier 
that would justify the criticism that you have just made, so far as this 
committee has any knowledge. 

Mrs. Schmidt. All right. Thank you. I am just referring to Miss 
Adams' statement. I would like to make a few comments. 


Grand Rapids, Mich., was represented here yesterday morning. In 
connection with Grand Rapids, Mich. : 

Reports a felony a day. F. C. Bates, Michigan State Supervisor of Probation, 
stated "The volume of criminal work from this court alone is as much as the 
total criminal work in 10 circuit courts covering 25 counties." The increase in 
gross indecency and child-molestation cases is startling. 

Fluoridation is supposed to be the weapon that will be used to 
take us. 

Dr. Nicholas Nyaradi, former Minister of Finance in Hungary's 
jDostwar coalition government, an escapee to America states that Com- 
rade Zhuchovitsky, Legal Adviser of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign 
Trade in the United States, told him of the plan to poison the water 
reservoirs of this country. 

It has been publicized time and time again. We are very close. It 
is coming very close to home. You do not have to worry about the 
atomic bomb. They won't be here. They will be taken over, the water 

I have in my home copies of this American Review of Medicine from 
1946 to 1947 and I'm not quoting from this paper. 

There are many articles in the American Review on Soviet Medi- 
cine, 1943 to 1948. I have the 1946 and 1947 issues in Minnesota. 

This says: 

Fluorine has been used successfully on patients in institutions for the insane 
in order to destroy the will of the inmates. 

When the $11 billion lend-lease went to Russia, Major Jordan was 
wondering what they were going to use the fluorine for. It was going 
into the water of the prison reservoirs and the slave-labor camps. 

You hear talk about how wonderful this is for the children. In 
Minnesota it is put into the institutions for the aged people. 

Also, may I have this bottle with this fluoride? This shows how 
much the bath of 30 gallons of water contains. Someone had a little 
bottle here. This shows how much it is in the Minnesota State Insti- 
tution for the Aged. They built an $80,000 swimming pool. If those 
people were not insane, they certainly would be at the age of 70 and 
80, with that put into the swimming pool. But here is the amount of 
fluoride in just 30 gallons of water that can be absorbed by the body. 
That has been proved and verifled. Besides that, the nurses there 
told me that they are also using tablets of fluoride to put in the water, 
and for internal baths. 

I would like to file this paper here for the record. This is from 

Mr. , who has a lecture at Atlanta, and so he could not 

be here. This is from Minnesota, and you heard reference to it, and 
I hope that you gentlemen will see those particular things. I have 
asked in my statement, which you will see, that this be turned over — 
whatever you decide on it — this be decided on, and after you have 
been furnished with it, that it be turned over to the Un-American 
Activities Committee of the congressional committee to be further 

I brought this to the attention of the proper authorities. And here, 
I would like for the record to file this, this receipt, to show that it has 
been turned over to the proper authorities. And here is a telegram 
from Minnesota people asking that there be a rider attached for a 
fine and a penalty, to prosecute the violators. 


We were told here yesterday that the people had freedom in decid- 
ing on this. It was put into the city of St. Paul without the citizens 
knowing about it. For 2 years they fought it, and then a group of 
young dentists said that they were going to throw out the old fuddy- 
duddies and put in new men, young men as aldermen, and then they 
would put that fluoridation in. That happened. 

The Governor of Minnesota's office told me that there was nothing 
the Governor could do about it, that public health was above the 
Governor of the State. 

On the 9th of INIarch last year I was processed for 2 hours by the 
Secret Service of the Wliite House and told then that nothing so in- 
significant as American public health could the President be bothered 

I am asking this committee if our Governor can do nothing; if our 
President can do nothing; if John B. Knutson, who is the head of this 
situation of public health, stated to me — and you will find the quo- 
tation in my paper — that this fluoridation program was all right. "I 
am going to go ahead with it." And said there was nothing Mrs. 
Hobbv can do about it. 

When I took it up with Dr. Martha Eliot, of the Children's Bu- 
reau, she stated that she had the power and the right, and she was 
going to enforce this power and that right to force this on every 
American whether they wanted it or not. 

I ask you gentlemen, Is that America? 

I would like to file these clippings. 

I have asked in my statement that fluoride that is bought in drug- 
stores should be signed for. Anyone can go in and buy this. It is 
odorless, colorless, and tasteless. It has been known in Europe for 
the last hundred years. Take a teakettle and boil the stuff in it and 
let it accumulate, and give a person some tea from that teakettle, and 
they will be gone. Here are fluoride advertisements, as to how you can 
go and buy it in any drugstore. Anyone can go in and get it. Y()u 
can use it on anyone without asking anybody about it. 

No doctor would ever sign a death certificate, where death came 
from use of fluoride, because of the fact it is present in your foods. 
Here are some clippings from all over the country. Here is the tele- 
gram sent to this committee last year asking for an early hearing. 
Here is the sample of how the doctors and dentists in Minnesota, in 
Hibbing, put this ad in the paper. That is because the chiropractors 
there were on the job. Wlierever it has been put down in Minnesota 
it has been done by the chiropractors profession, because they have 
machines that will show the effects of it, that it is detrimental to the 
human system, which the medical profession does not have, the ma- 
chines to detect it. 

Here are three articles from New York, the New York Post. Then, 
in the Washington and in the Minneapolis papers. All of this 
flooded. This is the same article. It can be syndicated out over the 
United States, but when the people want to, they cannot get in the 
papers one thing, when it is voted down. I fought for 3 days with 
the editors of the Minneapolis papers to get a part of the election 
records put in that had been voted down 2 to 1 in St. Paul; a part of 
the election records of November 4, had been voted down 11 to 10 in 
Hibbing, Minn., on December 2. Three days later they put it in, but 


they put it in at the bottom of a paragraph, about how 25 cities in 
Minnesota had fluoridated and these 2 happened to vote it down. They 
never mentioned all of the other places where it had been voted down 
in Minnesota. 

These are two places where the people got a chance to vote it down. 
You spoke of the people getting a chance to vote yesterday. There 
is no such thing as getting a vote on it. We don't have that. In 
Minneapolis they cannot vote on it. It is not in the city charter that 
they have a vote on it. 

So, the dentists, and whoever it was behind this, were able to throw 
out the aldermen that had protected that city for 18 or more years, 
because they would not go along with fluoridation. They put new 
ones in. Now, a city of a half a million people is faced with that, and 
the Governor can do nothing about it, and your President cannot be 
bothered with it, and the public health has the right and the power 
to force it in. 

We have just one place left and that is you men here, and if we can 
depend on you men here as to whether this country goes under, or you 
save it, because what happened in this room yesterday, if that is ac- 
cepted, that is what has happened to every country, Rumania, Czecho- 
slovakia, Poland, before they took over. They didn't use bonmbs. 
They went over and took over. The same thing is happening here. 

Here, I will file this for the record. This is out of a book by Uncle 
Joe, how they are going to produce a brand of humans, like you pro- 
duce different vegetables; like you produce different animals, and 
stated that it could also be done to men ; that men had to be changed ; 
that evolution — man was too slow this way. He had to be changed. 

This is from the book by Budu Iwanidsi, My Uncle Joe, and pub- 
lished in London in 1952. These are his words : 

Natural evolution, which is too slow for the present rhythm of technical prog- 
ress. Men must be converted from a terrestrial animal to a solar universal 
animal — 

and of course if you want to produce something new, you first have to 
get rid of the old. 

I also have a part of a speech given in Bulgaria. I have parts of 
others given in Budapest, prior to February 1952, when they told the 
citizens of Budapest, anyone who was not working could get out of the 
city. What happened to them we do not know. The rest of the 
people were told to get at one end of the city and they took over the 
other. Prior to that, 4 weeks in advance, they had given speeches and 
in that speech stated positively, stated that in America now was the 
last generation of white children being born, and Dr. Betts showed 
you in his paper yesterday that the cattle cannot reproduce. 

That happened in Germany when Hitler took over. 

I am just going to give you this one point and then I will go. 

The Chaieman. Mrs. Schmidt, your time has expired. You are 1 
minute over now. 

Mrs. Schmidt. All right. 

The Chairman. But I want you to know that you have the privilege, 
and the same is true with reference to the other witnesses, to revise 
and extend your remarks, but it will not be possible to include all 
of those clippings and articles that you have presented and have on 
the desk there this morning. 


Mrs. Schmidt. I would like for these to be left here. 

The Chairman. If you value those, I would suggest that you take 
them with you. 

Mrs. Schmidt. I want to show here is a letter. This was written 
from St. Paul, shows how St. Paul was taken over and there was 
fluoridation without the citizens knowing anything about it, and they 
were never given a chance even to vote on it. 

I have asked to leave them here. The gentleman tells me he will 
return them to me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Clerk, will you make a record and see that 
those that are left with the reporter are returned to Mrs. Sclimidt. 
They are not to be made a part of the record. 

(Mrs. Schmidt's statement above referred to is as follows:) 

Statement of Mrs. Peder P. Schmidt, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, regarding public hearing on May 25, 26, and 27, on H. R. 2341, water 
fluoridation, 1 am requesting to appear as a witness for said bill, representing 
groups of people from more than 25 States opposed to drinking poisoned water. 
I will require the full 15 minutes of time allowed to each witness — according 
to notice. 

Point 1 : War on crime, and the destruction of this Nation from within by 
insidious ways, fluoridation the one here to be discussed, the most devilish 
of all ways concocted, the cleverest concealed, so far. Who were the insti- 
gators? Who brought the idea here from Europe? Could it be the group 
brought over here from Europe by Frances Perkins to set up the so-called 
social security, or could it be the same group who thought out sending our money 
plates to Russia? 

Point 2 : FBI records describe the atom-bomb conspiracy as the crime of 
the century — a plot from within which took away America's greatest defensive 
strength. So well did the Communist sympathizers in the United States Gov- 
ernment cover up the tracks of the atomic traitors between 1942 and 1945 that 
news of the stolen secrets was not acknowledged publicly until mid-April 1951 
(reference: Hon. Fred E. Busbey, Representative from Illinois, National Re- 
public, Washington, D. C, June 1951, p. 1). Whoever shielded them can be 
doing the same for the fluoridators. I say, fluoridation is the crime of this 
millenium, destroying America's human strength. 

Point 3 : On December 29, 1951, I had been asked to speak on herbs at the 
banquet of the Minnesota State Vegetarian Society in St. Paul. That evening 
I asked if I could change the topic to fluoridation of public water, as such 
had been proposed in Minneapolis and consequently in due time it could be 
expected to be an issue in St. Paul, or elsewhere. During the discussion 
period one of the ladies spoke up and said that her brother worked for the 
waterworks and he had said that they were installing machines for fluoridation 
and it was to be used beginning January 1, 1952. No one else present had heard 
anything about it or seen anything in the newspapers regarding it. On checking 
the newspapers I found that the public health department and other groups 
had requested the city council to put in fluoridation and on these requests they 
proceeded to do so. St. Paul citizens had not been consulted at all. On" one 
occasion Commissioner Rosen stated to a citizen bluntly and forcefully, "You 
are going to get it, whether you want it or not. Exactly the same statement 
was made in the mayor's reception room in Minneapolis by Mrs. David Young- 
dahl to members of antifluoridation groups. Her husband, one of the most 
ardent of fluoride promoters in Minneapolis, on October 31, at a council meeting 
there where a vote on it had been stopped at 12 to 12, was sitting on a bench 
beside me when Alderman Stakowski and Wolenski came to tell him how sorry 
they were not to have been able to do any better for the fluoridation deal. 
Prior to Christmas 1952, at a "dental clinic" at the Nicollet Hotel in Minneapolis 
it had been stated in newspapers that about 500 dentists from around the States 
were expected for the several days' affair. I went there to hand out information 
on the fluoride question. When the clinic was ended and all were leaving 
the hall, about every fourth person rejected antifluoridation literature, stating 


that they were fluoride salesmen — or salesmen for fluoride-dispensing machinery. 
Older dentists received the antifluoridation literature gladly. Many of them 
called me aside, telling me how much they "abhorred the stuff" in any form, 
that it was most disastrous to have it used for human consumption. They 
said that it was a change of diet that was needed to avoid bad teeth. Then 
a group of the younger dentists surrounded me, arguing that fluoridation was 
good, that "we are going to throw out all the old foddy-doddies — next year — 
sitting in Minneapolis City Council and put in young progressive aldermen who 
will put fluoridation in." Their predictions came true. In 1953 they were 
able to change enough aldermen to now, in 1954, get fluoridation voted in over 
the protests of Minneapolis citizens — but not yet installed. 

Point 4 : I spent October 6, 1952, in Austin, Minn., talking to people about what 
they thought of fluoridation, it having been in their good unchlorinated spring 
water for about 3 months. A sports goods businessman from the Twin Cities 
who had kept his minnows in Austin had lost all of them, over $200 worth ; they 
all died the first week that water was fluoridated in Austin. Out of 25 people 
that I talked to, 24 were opposed to fluoridation. Three women told me that 
they had been told by their doctors not to use any of the fluoridated water for 
human consumption ; it was wrecking their kidneys, plus other effects on them. 
Two of them were getting their water for kitchen use from farmers' wells outside 
Austin, but did not know what they would do when the sulizero weather was 
coming. One of them was the wife of the manager of a theater there ; they got 
spring water shipped from Minneapolis with the truck that regularly brought 
their films for the theater (Chippewa spi'ing water from Wisconsin). To such 
inconvenience must people go in this supposedly convenient age to get water fit 
for human consumption — or be poisoned. 

Point 5 : On June 12, 1952, I went to St. Cloud to the annual mayors' conven- 
tion to talk especially to Mayor Johnson, from Duluth. He stated that he was 
doing nothing about the fluoridation issue as long as public-health officials rec- 
ommended it — that was good enough for him. I talked to a number of mayors 
there and found some who had been approached on the subject and I gave them 
informative literature on the danger of fluoridation, but was then told by a gen- 
tleman there to kindly leave or I would be arrested as I could not come there to 
talk to the mayors in between sessions. I also talked to the mayor from Ely, 
Minn., who had just a few days earlier found out how dangerous it was, by look- 
ing at the labeling of the sacks in which fluoride came (he noticed the skull and 
cross bones on the sacks and that the men handling them had to wear rubber 
gloves and used masks equipped with dust filters). 

Point 6 : On October 20, 1052, I opposed fluoridation in Annandale, Minn. 
Dr. Jordan, public-health official there, was in favor of it. The man accompany- 
ing Dr. Jordan tried to bar me from the room as I was not a taxpayer there. 
But I was ready for them because my husband and I are owners of Fair Haven 
Mill property with land in both Sterns and Wright Counties, Annandale being 
located in the latter. I handed out quantities of antifluoridation literature 
before and after the meeting (don't think Annandale is fluoridated up to date). 
When Dr. Jordan was finished with his presentation, the man presiding stated 
"if no o'ojection, we will then proceed with the fluoridation, etc." It was then 
that I protested. Dr. Jordan, getting up in rebuttal, stated there was always 
one opposing it, one fanatic, etc., nodding toward me, that Mrs. Schmidt could 
always be depended on to oppose, that she is wrong, IMilwaukee bad voted it in, 
and "there is no danger connected with the use of fluoridation in such small 
quantities as 1 point per million to 1.5 per million." (The statement regarding 
Milwaukee was an outright lie, as practically all else he said also was not true.) 

1 was given no further chance to speak. These are just a few samples of what 
has been going on across America the last 3 years. 

Point 7: From October 21, 1952, until the last meeting January 13, 1953, I 
held protest meetings in the mayor's reception room in Minneapolis every 2 
weeks. I had suitcases of material put on display from all over the world in 
opposition to fluoridation, plus on one table the material favoring fluoridation 
so people could see, read, and examine it. Part of the time, some days from 

2 p. m. until 10 p. m., or from 6 to 11 p. m., each time for about 2 hours or so, 
there were speakers to clarify the matter further and to answer questions. On 
January 13, 1953, I told the group then present that it was no use to think that 
we could keep on keeping fluoridation out of Minneapolis, or to do anything 
to stop it on State level, that I was going to Washington to get legislation in 
on it on Federal level. Tlie group then took up a collection for me which 


covered my fare to Washington as I bad almost bankrupted my family opposing 
fluoridation and otber measures in earlier years on bealtb and economic topics, 

Point 8: Have tried up to now to show you the iron-fist type, un-American 
way in which this has been forced on the American public. The public's ]jro- 
test in 90 percent of the cases have gone unheeded. When brought up, 70 percent 
of fluoridation has moved in so swiftly that not until it had been in use for 
months, would it come to the attention of someone who knew the danger of it, 
or until from its detrimental effects were felt, it became known among the 
consumers. About 300 cities either have already thrown out fluoridation, or are 
in the processes of stopping it. lUit in such cases has the fluoride been removed 
or is it still standing by the waterworks, so that at a given signal it can all be 
dumped in at one time by the Quislings. Have been told that the pulflic water 
supply does not come under civil defense. To remove the fluoride, and to keep 
account of any excessive amount of chloride near water works should be a civil- 
defense matter. 

Point 9 : When I reached Washington last year the need for legislation against 
fluoride had not yet penetrated into Congress — no one would touch it ; no one I 
talked to would introduce legislation about it in the Senate. My State Senators 
refused to do anything about it. Then I started on the House Members. Con- 
gressman Judd, who represents part of Minneapolis, refused to have anything 
to do witl) the measure. On January 20 I spent several hours, or thereabouts, 
with Congressman Hon. Koy V/ier, who represents my district in Minnesota. 
When Mr. Wier started to talk about liow to have the bill drawn up, I said I 
would leave it entirely in his hands, that it did not matter too greatly how it 
was drawn up, as all that would l)e needed would be to have it declared unlaw- 
ful due to its destructiveness. That would not infringe on anyone's freedom 
or take something away from the States ; instead it would protect our freedom. 

Following this discussion. Congressman Wier then introduced H. R. 2341 on 
January 29^ 1953. Would suggest that all should be required to sign for fluoride 
as is required for other dangerous poisons bought in drugstores. (Other poisons 
can lie detected very easily, but not so with fluoride.) 

Point 10 : On April 17, 1953, at YWCA, 17th and K Streets, NW., Washington, 
D. C, Dr. IMaguusson, Chairman for Truman's "Factfindings on Healtli," was 
the speaker at a luncheon. I asked him if he would explain why no material 
with any mentioning of opposing fluoride was not accepted into "Findings." 
He immediately answered: "The Commission was for fluoridation". (All, there, 
present, can testify to this.) But he thought it would take 20 years to tell any- 
thing about what it could do to the human race. I, again, asked, "Does that 
.justify making guinea pigs out of every American for the next 20 years'?" He 
answered : "The Commission only recommends, they do not make the laws." 
When Dr. Magnusson was leaving I had a talk with him ; he then admitted to 
me that it would take a generation to tell what this could do, and even what 
could follow from it in the next generation, as it definitely did something to 
all living animal matter. 

Point 11 : In the 15 months spent here, I have covered a big territory on 
this subject — have all the subject matter for fluoridation, and find that up to 
1951 most was written on the study of organic fluoride, which is naturally in 
the water. When talking it over with Dr. John W. Knudson, who is the top 
man in charge of the fluoridation idea, his answer to me was: "There is nothing 
wrong with fluoridation, and I am going to continue on with the program," add- 
ing, gleefully, "and there is nothing Mrs. Hobby can do about it." 

In my talks with head of Children's Bureau, Dr. Martha Eliot got further 
proof of the iron-fist deal. (The Children's Bureau money is being dissipated 
for this junket and stuff.) Dr. Blartha Eliot answered, simultaneously, with 
a sweeping gesture of her hand, over all the material I had of authorities on 
the danger of it, "All these know nothing, I have the opinions of those who 
know" * * *. I finally asked her, "granting you. Dr. Eliot, that you are right, 
do you feel that you have the power and the right to force this on every Ameri- 
can, every mother and child in this country asainst their will?" Dr. Eliot then 
go up from her chair, pounding her fist on the table, stating "I have that power 
and I have that right, and I shall continue to enforce that power on that right." 
* * * The power and intolerance of the fluoridators are unparalleled in America's 
history, and was demonstrated in Cincinnati, when Tom McCarthy, station 
WKRC commentator, who had spoken against fluoridation, was taken off the 
air. The fact that when fluoridation is voted down it is not mentioned in new.s- 

48391—54 12 


papers, but when it is voted in, it gets the headlines, should make us all stop 
and think. 

The fear for America under this iron rule is troubling me and millions of 
others, so am asking this committee that when the fluoride question is settled, 
regardless of how you may decide on it that the whole situation be immediately 
turned over to the un-American activities congressional committees for fur- 
ther study, because fluoride has been used for the destruction of much of the 
public of Kurope, and perhaps is as little known to the Europeans as it is to most 
Americans. Copies of this will go to the Justice Department as I, last year, 
there, requested that this fluoride structure, or situation, be checked under 
the new law on security passed in 1953, as no loyalty check has been required 
in the Department of Public Health and Welfare as far as I know, or have 
been able to find out about it. With this I will close my requests. 

Mr. Hale. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hale would like to ask you a question, Mrs. 

Mr. Hale. Mrs. Schmidt, suppose there was a small municipality 
in my district having a population of say 500 people. Suppose they 
voted unanimously that they wanted to fluoridate their water supply. 
Would you say that Congress should prevent them from doing so? 

Mrs. Schmidt. Sir, the Public Health propagandizes them with 
millions of dollars. 

Mr. Hale. Will you speak louder please. I do not hear you. 

Mrs. Schmidt. The Public Health is propagandizing the United 
States with millions of dollars worth of material. The people do 
not know Avhat they are getting in the cities. They are not told what 
is happening. They are not told how this goes in. This gentleman. 
Dr. Brusch told you. They are told about organic fluoride, and 
they have no proof. 

You have not asked them to bring human beings in here, who have 
been subjected to this chemical fluid for 20 years, to speak about it. 

Mr. Hale. I think you can answer my question "Yes" or "No." 

Mrs. Schmidt. Please restate the question again. You asked me 
about 500 people. 

Mr. Hale. I said suppose that there were 500 people in a small 
municipality, constituting a municipality in my district, and that 
they voted unanmously that they wished their water supply fluori- 
dated; wish a certain amount of fluorides in their water supply. 
Should Congress prohibit that? That is what I want a "yes" or 
"no" answer to. 

Mrs. ScHMTOT. Doctor 

Mr. Hale. Now, you can answer that "Yes" or "No." 

Mrs. Schmidt. Dr. Sandler 

Mr. Hale. You can answer that "Yes" or "No." I would like to 
have a "yes" or "no" answer to that question. 

Mrs. Schmidt. Do you realize murder by remote control? That 
would be the answer. 

Mr. Hale. You can answer the question. You will not answer the 
question ? 

The Chairman. Do you want an answer to the question? 

Mr. Hale. It is all right. 

Mrs. Schmidt. After all, the people 

Mr. Hale. You have refused to answer my question and I do not 
want to hear any more. I have asked you a question and you have 
refused to answer it. 


Mrs. Schmidt. Must the truth not be known in the United States 
any more? I have stated that if the people knew both sides of the 
question and were told the truth, there would be no unanimous request. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? If 
not, we think you, Mrs. Schmidt, for your appearance and the in- 
terest you have taken in this matter. 


The Chairman. Our next witness will be Mr. Konstantine K. 
Paluev, research and development engineer, Pittsfield, Mass. Mr. 
Paluev is a fellow of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. 

Mr. Heselton. Mr. Chairman, in view of the treatment that was 
given to my colleague, Mr. Pelly, yesterday, I will venture the sugges- 
tion, in the hope that the chairman will not be called upon to say any- 
thing about me. 

I do want to welcome Mr. Paluev here. He is a respected consti- 
tuent of mine, lives in Berkshire County, and I want to welcome him 
before the committee. 

The Chairman. We are very pleased to have you, Mr. Paluev, com- 
ing from the home community of our distinguished colleague and 
member of the committee, Mr. Heselton, who already has informed the 
committee of your outstanding ability. We will be pleased to have 
the benefit of your statement. 

Mr. Paluev. Mr. Heselton is very kind. Thank you, very much. 
I am going to try to stay within the 15 minutes, by chopping up of my 
oral statement, and therefore, I apologize for the lack of continuity. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not represent any organization. All my activ- 
ities in this field are financed by myself. I am not a dentist or a 
doctor. By education I am an electromechanical engineer with some 
30 years' experience in industrial research and development that has 
nothing to do with health. The natural question, therefore, is why 
am I here, supporting antifluoridation bill H. E. 2341. I am here 
because opinion was expressed at 1953-54 fluoridation hearing of Mas- 
sachusetts legislators, that my analysis should be made known na- 

I am convinced that the evaluation of the effectiveness and the 
safety of artificial fluoridation needs help from those who have the 
temperamental training for research; people who are not scared by 
charts, diagrams, tables, and arithmetical calculations; who, as a 
matter of fact, enjoy them, who have the patience to scrutinize them 
for hours and days if necessary. The profiuoridation literature ex- 
hibits an extraordinary lack of such training, with the result than an 
unproven hypothesis with experimental evidence against it, has been 
presented to professions connected with health and the Nation as a 
scientific fact and a grand success. A calculated risk promoters call 
it. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the risk is badly miscalculated. 

This happened, I am convinced, not through an evil intent but 
rather temperamental inadequacy with enthusiasm rather than 
mathematical scrutiny prevailing. We are now confronted with a 
grave national danger. This time, not from a big lie, character- 
istic of some isms, but with a big untruth, which already has engulfed 


some 24 million people, without their consent. Through interstate 
commerce in foods it threatens the rest of the Nation. 

I shall now analyze the data and statements found in published re- 
ports on the famous and longest artificial fluoridation experiments, in 
Newburgh, N. Y., and Grand Eapids, Mich., and in the paper presented 
by Dr. John W. Knutson, Chief, Division of Dental Public Health of 
the United States Public Health Service, on January 17, 1952, and 
published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This analysis 
will demonstrate that the artificial fluoridation hypothesis has either 
utterly failed or needs to be experimented with in laboratories for 
another 10 years at least, and therefore no public water should be 
fluoridated until then, if at all. 

I will limit myself now to the analysis of the effect of fluoride on 
dental decay. For discussion of possible irreparable evil effect on 
health, I respectfully refer you to the other part of my pamphlet on 
"artificial fluoridation — layman's dilemma," given to the committee. 

Let us first examine the chronology of eruption of so-called perma- 
nent teeth shown on the chart. Along the bottom the 7 types of teeth 
are enumerated — the molars, the incisors — central and lateral — the 
second bicuspids, the first bicuspids, tlie cuspids, and, finally, the sec- 
ond molars. As you know, normally we have 4 teeth of each type, 
28 altogether. I will not discuss the eighth type, the third molars or 
so-called wisdom teeth, because of their transitory nature. The 4 
first molars erupt between the ages of 6 and 7 as shown by the solid 
black. The next to erupt are the incisors. They appear between 6 
and 9, as shown. Then come the bicuspids and cuspids. Finally, the 
four second molars which are the hindmost teeth, immediate neigh- 
bors of the first molars. Please note that in Newburgh at the age of 
12, the end of the experimental observation, on the average, only 1 
out of 4 second molars erupted. 

If we take children born in 1940, by 1945, the year of beginning of 
experimental fluoridation, they were 5 years old with none of the 
permanent teeth erupted. By 1950, they were 10 — their first molars 
were used for 3 years and the next two types have been used, say 2 
3^ears, the remaining 4 types have not yet erupted — altogether, a 
negligible experience in comparison with a lifetime. The use of 28 
teeth of 7 types for say 60 years or 28 times 60 equal 1,680 teeth-years 
is a measure of a lifetime experience to be compared with 3 times 4 
plus 2 times 8 equals 28 teeth-years experience with only 3 types up 
to 1950 or with one-sixtieth of a lifetime. 

Yet the astonishing fact is that on the basis of this negligible and 
unsuccessful experience, the American Dental Association gave its 
formal endorsement for national use of artificial fluoridation as an 
effective and safe method. A little more than a year later, Dr. John 
W. Knutson had these encouraging words for the future of children 
raised on an artificially fluoridated water: 

It is their privilege of having straighter, stronger, better looking teeth than 
than their parents have had ; * * * that this protection against dental decay 
will carry over to the future generation of adults ; * * * these benefits are 
not temporary, they last a lifetime. 

Mr. Chairman, as you look at the chart you see that the lifetime of 
the children we are talking about will expire about the year 2000 and 
Dr. Knutson's optimism is based, according to the chart, on not more 


than 4 or 5 years of experimental study of erupted permanent teeth. 
A study which revealed, of all things, that artificial fluoridation in 
all probability not only does not prevent but very likely aggravates 
dental decay. Yet, Dr. Knutson was so convinced of the social bene- 
fits from this measure that in the sauie article he asked his professional 
audience, "Why are we quibbling, delaying, pigeon-holing in the face 
of exhaustive research and overwhelming proof?" 

May I now show you, Mr. Chairman, at least some of the reasons 
for disagreeing with that research was exhaustive and the proof over- 
whelming : 

On this chart I have two tables, both based on the data collected 
by Newburgh and Grand Rapids researches by 1952, after Gi/o years 
of fluoridation, and what do we find? Table A shows among chil- 
dren of 12 years of age, there was a total of 12 teeth of the 3 types most 
susceptible to the caries or the bacteriological decay, the only type of 
dental decay that fluoride is supposed to prevent. As you know, sir, 
pyorrhea is even more devastating than caries. 
Before fluoridation, 8 of these 12 teeth or 66 percent of them were 

' either decayed, filled, or missing after only 4 years of use. The third 
line shows that 6i/^ years of fluoridation didn't help much as 6 or 50 
percent were found to be decayed, filled, or missing, but the artificial 
luoridation hypothesis, so-called by the researchers themselves, 
promised, as the fourth line shows, that less than 3 teeth or 22 percent 
3f total will decay or be missing after lifetime, that is, 48 years later, 

? by the year 2000. 

I Now, let's look at table B of children 10 to 12 years old and find the 

■i state of their first molars, the only molars erupted by the age of 12. 
As the artificial fluoridation researchers write in their report, the 
molars are the principal objective of fluoridation as there are at least 

I six times as many molars in dental trouble as the next most trouble- 

i some. 

The table shows that of the 4 first molars, on the average, 3.2 or 80 
percent were decayed, filled, or missing after 41/^ years of use with- 
out fluoride. With Qy2 years of fluoridation 2.6 or 65 percent became 
defective after 41/2 years use, yet the fluoridation hypothesis promised 
that there should not be more than one decayed, filled, or missing 
tooth — or, more precisely, statistically, 0.8 of a tooth on the average — 
after a lifetime experience, that is, not after 414 years but 60. 

j Wouldn't you agree with me. Mr. Chairman, that the promoters' 

'prediction was more a matter of fortune telling than scientific diag- 
nosis? Yet, their claim that artificial fluoridation will reduce decay 
by 65 percent for lifetime has been repeated across the land by hun- 
dreds and perhaps thousands of echo men in and out of dental pro- 
fession, who preferred to resound what they had heard from high 
authority rather than patiently scrutinize the data readily available. 
We are witnessing here one more illustration of how a well-organized, 
deeply convinced and ill-informed group of people can have a pro- 
founcl ill effect on our national life. 

The data showed artificial fluoridation even in a worse light than 
I so far have presented. Let us examine the .next chart where we 
will compare the increase in number of decayed, filled, and missing 
teeth with the children's growth. This chart represents conditions 
found with and without fluoride by Grand Rapids and Xewburgh 


experimenters. The length of bars correspond to number of defec- 
tive teeth per child of corresponding age, red for teeth free of fluoride 
and black after 6^/^ years of fluoridation. 

The comparison of two sets of bars indicates that in fluoridated 
areas, up to the ages of 8 to 9, either the detection of decay was more 
difficult or there was a temporary delay in decay. However, the un- 
expected increase in the rate of fluoridated decay after the age of 9 
shows that most likely by the age 14 or at the most 16, fluoridated 
areas will have more decayed teeth than nonfluoridated. Such pos- 
sibility is strengthened by the phenomenon peculiar to fluoridated 
decay revealed on the chart : The number of decayed, filled or missing 
teeth in fluoridated communities doubled every 2 years, that is, chil- 
dren of 8 years had on the average 1% decayed, filled, or missing; 2 
years later they had twice as many or 3 ; 2 years later, when they were 
12, the number of decayed, filled, or missing again doubled and be- 
came 6. 

By the age of 14, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they 
should have on the average 12 decayed teeth, slightly more than 
among children of the same age in communities free of fluoridation. 
Unfortunately, the experimental observation of the effect of arti- 
ficial fluoridation stops at the age of 12. Unless the experimenters 
change their routine they will never learn just how long this phenom- 
enon of doubling or compounding decay peculiar to fluoride con- 

There are among the fluoridation promoters those who believe that 
for the fluoride to be effective it must be partaken from prenatal stage 
on. Therefore, the discouraging evidence of my charts does not 
apply, they say, as in the case of Newburgh and Grand Rapids the 
first beneficiar)^ of the measure will be the cliildren born in 1946. 
But if so, these children were only 3 years old by 1950 and therefore 
had only a few milk and no permanent teeth erupted. In the light 
of this alternative hypothesis the endorsement of artificial fluorida- 
tion by the American Dental Association in 1950 and by the Federal 
Government thereabouts had no experimental basis at all and there- 
fore is still more astonishing. 

They should have waited until these children reached the age of 
12 at least, that is, until 1958. 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, the data presented is sufficient to prove that 
at best the artificial fluoridation hypothesis remains a hypothesis — 
an attractive hypothesis, unfortunately prematurely kidnaped from 
laboratories by monied bureaucracy, obsessed with social benevolence, 
prostituted across the land by the enthusiastic echomen until it gave 
birth to a social monstrosity proudly pointed at by the promoters as 
a new milestone in public health which, I regret, is more likely to be- 
come a millstone to the well-meaning promoters and earlier tomb- 
stone to the innocent consumers of artificially fluoridated water. 

In addition to all this, Mr. Chairman, I, as a citizen, am greatly 
perturbed by the instability of the officiaj position of the Federal 
Health Service on this whole question, ^t was only in 1948 that 
in a pamphlet entitled "New Discovery Curbs Tooth Decay" Fed- 
eral Security Administrator Oscar R. Ewing declared that "the only 
method of proved effectiveness" is the direct or topical application of 
sodium-fluoride compounds to the teeth; that "its effectiveness in 
reducing dental decay has been thoroughly established." 


A year later, Dr. Kniitson, Mr. Swing's subordinate, published a 
scientific paper describing his improved method of direct applica- 
tion. Not a word was devoted to artificial fluoridation of public 
water. Yet 2 years later in a scholastical looking paper which I 
have already quoted, he is committing the United States Health 
Service with unbounded enthusiasm to fluoridation of public water, 
reinforcing his position by quotations from 48 presumably scientific 
papers with an unexpected exception of his own 1949 paper on direct 
applications of fluoride to teeth. What disturbs me is not the radical 
change in the Government's position but the suddenness of change in 
a matter where new convincing experimental evidence cannot possibly 
be secured with corresponding suddenness. 

We all know of the availability of fluoride-bearing pills. If fluorid- 
ists want to experiment with their children the crime and the harm 
would be limited. Why insist on experimenting with the entire Na- 
tion for the possible temporary saving of disguising one little molar, 
allowing a mighty hoax out of a little molar grow. 

Particularly after Newburgh's experimenters declared in their first 
report, covering only 3I/2 years: 

* * * artificially fluoridated water had the greatest prophylactic effect during 
the period of this study on the teeth least often attacked by caries. 

So even at the early stage, the fleeting "help" was limited to the 
teeth that help themselves. 

The Chairman. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Paluev. Thank you. 

The Chairman. I have been impressed with the care and precision 
with which you have testified, based upon your study and expense. 
You have the permission of the committee to revise and extend your 
remarks, particularly extend them, if you wish to do so, in the record 
so that the committee may have the full benefit of the information that 
you possess. 

Mr. Paluev. Thank you most kindly. I appreciate it. 


The Chairman. The next witness will be Mrs. Aileen S. Robinson, 
Seattle, Wash. 

Mrs. Robinson. If — the chemical — fluoride, could be proved to be 
of any benefit to dental health, it would still be highly improper to 
administer it b;^JJie-4iigh-handed, compulsory method of adding it 
to our warier-supplies. Such treatment is an infringement of indi- 
vidual collstitutional rights. At the risk of their lives, their fortunes, 
and their sacred honor, our fathers fought and died to establish in 
this country — not a so-called democracy that would allow any major- 
ity vote to tyrannize a helpless minority — but a Republic, with a Con- 

These Founders worked closely and prayerfully with God and they 
based the whole foundation of our law upon the 10 Commandments. 
They considered the individual rights of man as so significant that 
they also included certain amendments called the Bill of Rights, 
which outlines the law that a majority vote of citizens or officials may 
not rule upon matters infringing stated constitutional rights of minor- 


The first amendment specifically protects the religious rights of 
individuals of different faiths — who may depend Avholly upon God, 
and prayer, for their healing. The fourteenth amendment guarantees 
individual privileges and immunities, and also protects our life and 
liberty. As was stated by the judge in Shreveport before awarding 
the injunction against fluoridation on January 5, 1954 : 

There is a great difference between adding something to purify the water 
and in adding something to the water in order to treat the people who drink 
the water. 

Fluoridation is a violation of the provisions of the Pure Food 
and Drug Act. Such law provides that no deleterious substance may 
be added to food — and water is defined as food. A beer company was 
convicted and fined under this law in 1946, for merely having had a 
trace of fluoride found in their product. And it was not necessary 
to prove that the amount used was great or small — just the fact that 
the fluoride should not have been used in food because it is a deleterious 
substance. Pharmacologists have labeled fluoride as a toxic, proto- 
plasmic poison. Cans of sodium fluoride found on drugstore shelves 
are plainly labeled "Poison," including the familiar skull and cross- 

Fluoridation is malpractice because neither Government bureaus, 
city officials, nor the voting public, has any authority to so prescribe 
for helpless neighbors and their defenseless little children — for all 
time, and with no hope of escape from this medication. 

Medical monopoly and so-called wonder drugs are not the final 
answer to the question of health. Millions of intelligent and respected 
peoJ3le depend upon wholesome, unadulterated food and drink for 
healthful daily living — and longevity ; and millions have had to turn 
away from medicine and surgery to other methods. 

Honest practitioners of naturopathy, chiropractic, and other drug- 
less healing do not lack for patients, their office are filled with those 
who are looking away from the drugs and synthetic chemicals. It 
is only under the Kremlin, the Nazis, or the Fascists that such schemes 
as water fluoridation could be expected to be found. 

Fluoridation got its first promotion from the United States Public 
Health Service under the Surgeon General and the former head of 
the Federal Security Agency, Mr. Oscar Ewing, using millions of our 
tax dollars for every kind of propaganda, deceit, and promotion, and 
Avith a total lack of any kind of dental or medical ethics. This mal- 
pratice and violation of the Pure Food and Drug Act is still being 
promoted under the new administration. Even though a clear and 
decisive mandate of the people one year and a half ago proved that 
the people demanded a change from this kind of compulsory or so- 
cialized medical care. Instead of a correction of these practices, Mrs. 
Plobby, our new head of the reorganized Cabinet-status Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, it is significant that we still see 
the violation by one of her departments of the statutes of another of 
her departments. 

We have implored of iSIrs. Hobby, and our other officials, to estab- 
lish an honest administration of her Pure Food and Drug statutes — 
and to stop this ma}})ractice by the bureaucrats — and with no response 
from her. 


We have seen no correction of tlie empire-building tendencies of the 
United States Public Health Service, in fact the opposite seems to be 
true because certain bills have been recently introduced into Congress 
that would give increased power to the Surgeon General, and I refer 
to H. R. 7oi)7 which intends to promote and assist in extension, etc., 
of Public Health Service — and for other purposes — what purposes? 
The Surgeon General is empowered to approve or reject any State's 
health plan ''"' * '^^ and he is ''authorized to train personnel for State 
and local health work," and he may refuse grants — of our tax money — 
if ''in the administration of the plan there is failure to comply sub- 
stantially with such requirements."" 

This is the kind of whiplashing we have been watching with regard 
to fluoridation promotion sifting down into our local health bu- 
reaus for years. Senate bill 2778 is nnich the same as H. E.. 7397, 
raid we wonder if oui' Congressmen are blind to the enormous impli- 
cations for future health experiments to be foisted upon the citizens 
by this power-hunting bureau. The United States Public Health 
Service or, more specifically, the Surgeon General that is mentioned 
so many times in these two bills. We wonder what next he wdll plan 
for us. 

We have noticed that the first and foremost promotion for fluorida- 
tion comes through the local public-health crowd, and we wonder just 
how" much of our Federal funds are granted to the local bureaus. 
This Federal money sifting down into our local areas is a direct viola- 
tion of the intent of the tenth amendment — which leaves to the local 
level all such matters as the local health problems. 

Hundreds of outraged and tormented citizens have petitioned to 
Mrs. Hobby for a correction of this forced medication — so far with 
no success — so we urge the enactment of the proper legislation, at the 
Federal level, in order to free the American citizens. 

The United States Public Health Service has spent millions of tax 
dollars for propaganda such as the large booklets No. 62, given out 
by the thousands to P-TA members, and so forth; for expensive 
glamour movies like "A Drop in the Bucket" ; for leaflets, and elabo- 
rate displays sent all over the country; for travel expense of public- 
health officials ; for various fluoride experiments and costs of process- 
ing the so-called statistics; and for making large grants to such States 
as in low^a : $o(3,450 to start 12 fluoride experiments in that State, 
covering costs of equipment and training of personnel, and so forth, 
in May 1952. The promoters state that fluoridation has been studied 
for dozens of years and they probably mean in the natural fluoride 
areas, ignoring the fact that the artificial fluoride experiments have 
only been going since 1945. 

The dentists and promoters state that *'93() communities, including 
17 million people, are now fluoridated,"" implying that these 17 million 
people are gratified and happy about this treatment. Their method of 
tallying these 930 communities is strange to say the least, because, for 
instance, instead of counting Baltimore and Washington, D. C, as 2 
cities fluoridated, they add on the other 102 little districts attached to 
the Baltimore reservoir, plus the 25 attached in Montgomery County, 
plus the 27 attached in Prince Georges County, and then they add on 
the other 4 attached to District of Columbia, plus Andrews Field, and 
they cor.nt the wliole as about ''1(>0 communities fluoridated."' 


The same kind of tally is used for Pittsburgh, it has attached 
another 10 little districts, Wilkinsburg has 20 attached, Louisville has 
19 attached to their reservoir, Indianapolis has 6, Portsmouth has 7, 
and Miami and Easton, Pa., both have 7 attached. 

In scarcely any one of these cities have the citizens been given 
any choice in the matter. It has been installed by high-pressured 
city officials, the same as in Washington, D. C., without allowing the 
citizens to make their own choice. Indeed, they have scarcely even 
been allowed to hear the other side of the controversy in their news- 
papers. In many instances, fluoride has been installed in deep secrecy 
and no announcement made until weeks later, if at all. 

But an outraged and organizing citizenry is now making itself 
heard. In at least 18 cities the citizens have put a stop to this practice. 
At great costs they have obtained referendums and thrown out the 
expensive equipment and supplies. In hundreds of the other cities 
there are active citizens' committees now demanding a stop to this 

If there is any merit in the use of fluoride it may be easily taken — 
in an exact, controlled, ethical doseage, by tablets, drops, capsules, 
and several other methods, at far less cost than if administered by 
the tons through the water supplies. A 10-cent capsule mixed with a 
26-ounce package of table salt — the same as iodized salt — will lasc for 
months, cost about 1 cent per month. 

Pharmacies carry these products, and this is the only ethical, Amer- 
ican way — and it may be stopped when necessary. The promotion 
for use of thousands of tons of worthless fluorides makes one wonder 
at the great and significant commercial aspects of this scheme. 

Flouridation has been promoted w^ith many techniques and deceits 
and some of these are revealed in the official Government transcript of 
that direct testimony of the State dental directors in their fourth 
annual conference, with the Public Health Service and the Children's 
Bureau, Federal Security Administration offices, Washington, D. C., 
June 1951. The featured part of the 3-day program was "Promotion 
and Application of Water Fluoridation," by F. A. Bull, dental director 
for the State Board of Plealth, Madison, Wis. 

In his opening remarks the Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, 
states that — 

WHO — World Health Organization, had an obligation to concern itself with 
problems of dental hygiene * * * the fact, too, that funds will now arise in the 
course of the coming year to the grand level of about $7i/4 million for the whole 
world, they are going to make some little start in this field * * *. Its job is to 
have specialists who can go and set up demonstration programs and consult, 
do an extensive training program through the device of fellowships * * * 
obviously one of the biggest things facing us is the catalyzing of a real national 
program of water fluoridation * * * and you will be having to worry about 
whether or not glass will turn white and plastics will dissolve and bread raste 
different * * * 

Dr. Bull then addresses the other dental directors as follows: 

Dr. Bull. What are some of the objections (to fluoridation)? The first: 
Isn't fluoride the thing that caused mottled enamel * * *? You have got to 
have an answer * * *. Now we tell them this, that at 1 part per million dental 
fluorosis (mottling) brings about the most beautiful teeth that anyone ever 
had. And we show them some pictures of such teeth * * *. We don't try 
to say that there is no such thing as fluorosis even at 1.2 parts per million which 
we are recommending. But you have got to have an answer * * *. And, in- 


cidentally, we never use the term "artificial" fluoridation * * * we call it 
"controlled fluoridation" * * *. Incidentally, we never had any "experiments" 
in Wisconsin. To take a city of 100,000 and say, "We are going to experiment 
on you, and if you survive will learii something" * * *. That is kind of rough 
treatment on the public * * *. In Wisconsin, we set up "demonstrations." 
Now in regard to toxicity * * * I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term "adding 
sodium fluoride." We never do that ; that is rat poison. You add fluorides. * * ♦ 
But this toxicity question is a difflcult one. I can't give you the answer on 
it. * * * I can prove to you that we don't know the answer to that one, because 
we had a city of 18,000 people which was fluoridating its water for or 8 months. 
Then a campaign was started by an organized opposition on the grounds of 
toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out flouride. * * * It's 
tough. * * * So when you get the answer on the question to toxicity, please 
write me at once, because I would like to know. * * * We think nothing of 
going to a community and saying, "You should fluoridate your water" * * * 
when we know it is going to cost them $50 per capita to get their equipment 

* * * a little hard to handle is the charge that fluoridation is not needed. They 
talk of other methods and when they get through adding up all the percentages 
of decay that we can reduce by such methods, we end up in a minus. When 
they talie us at our own word they make awful liars out of us * * * you are going 
to have to combat it "^ * *. 

Another tough question is that of the liability of the water department. * * * 
First you need a positive policy by your State dental society and your State 
board of health * * * a really positive policy * * * get a policy that says, 
"Do it." That is what the public wants, you know * * * and make it em- 
phatic * * * otherwise they wouldn't need public health people. What are we 
here for? 

* * * publicity that the local fellows can't handle * * * must be gotten out 
from the State level * * * can come from the State board of health or the 
fluoridation committee of the State dental society. And that committee can 
assist in the prefluoridation survey? Is it to find out if fluoridation works? 
No. We have told the public it works, so we can't go back on tliat. * * * You 
want your prefluoridation data, so 3, 5, or any year from now you can go back 
into these same areas and to the same type of survey and show the people what 
they have got * * * make it look important enough so you can have it on 
the State level. And when you do it on that level, don't get somebody on the 
program who ends up, "But I don't think you should do it." * * * i jxist came 
back from a meeting in Seattle, and a fellow said, when he got through with 
his presentation, "But I could not recommend that anybody do this." 

When we are having the press in and the public in, don't have anybody on 
the program wlio is going to go ahead and oppose us because he wants to 
study it some more * * * get over to the newspaper office. * * * They like that 

* * * they get warmed up. * * * You remind them that the press has been one 
of the greatest factors in the promotion of public health. You tell them how 
fluoridation helps the poor devil who can't afford proper dental care. * * * You 
have got to come out of that local meeting with a resolution from your local 
dental society. * * * You have got one from the State. You have got one from 
the State board of health, and one nationally. * * * Let me tell you this : 
The medical audience is the easiest audience in the world to present this to * * * 
go before lay groups, service clubs, PTA's, etc. * * * have a sample ordinance 
all drawn up, so that all they have to do is either strike out something or add 
what they want, put in the name of the town * * * now present the ordinance 
to your city council. * * * The oflicials * * * have seen the reactions * * * of 
the PTA groups * * * service clubs, union groups, etc. 

Y'ou have got to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is on 
the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. We know there is 
absolutely no effect other than reducing decay, you say, and go on * * * don't 
bring it up yourself. * * * Let me tell you the PTA is a honey when it comes 
to fluoridation * * * jf yQ^ pa^^ keep fluoridation from going to a referendum. 

Dr. DeCamp (Florida dental director). I would like, Dr. Bull, for you to go 
back to Milwaiikee and do something to the vitamin products company * * * 
which recently passed out this pamphlet * * * they were all ready to put the 
final touches on fluoridation for the city of Tampa, serving 200,000 people. * * * 
But the major and the city council got copies of this * * * and they tried to 
turn thumbs down on this thing at once. We were stymied * * * can't you do 
something about it? 


Dr. Glover Johns (Texas). We have something parallel to this * * *. The 
University of Texas had a research project on some white mice * * * there was 
the rumor that this research project indicated that fluoridation of water supplies 
causes cancer. This had knocked the pins from under us. We don't know how to 
combat it * * *. 

Dr. Bull. I wish I knew the answers * * * two-thirds of the deans of the 
dental schools of the universities sa.ying that fluoridation is rat poison, and 
should not be used * * * got to knock them down the best way you can * * *. 

Dr. Johns. We are preparing a refutation statement * * *. Is that good 


Dr. Bull. Yes, anything you can do is good technique. I think the best tech- 
nique is the reverse technique * * * when they say yes, you say no. 


Mr. Maier (senior sanitary engineer of division of public health). * * * the 
criterion that we have been using is that if there is some 10 to 20 percent fluorosis 
(mottling) in the community that would not be objectionable * * * there is 
more fluoride being thrown away * * * in * * * industries, than the whole 
country will ever use for fluoridating * * *. 

The above testimony clearly indicates how the so-called endorse- 
ments have been obtained for finoridation, and it is interesting to note 
that an officer and representative of the American Dental Association, 
Dr. Philli]) Phair, was in attendance at this conference. We can easily 
now understand just how the endorsement of the ADA was obtained 
for finoridation. 

During the past few years I have carefully documented and com- 
piled lists of approximately 400 cities that have either defeated or 
refused or kicked out fluoridation and this list grows so fast I can 
scarcely keep them n\) to date. If I wanted to tally this list in the 
strange manner used hy the Public Health crowd and the dentists — 
by counting all their little "communities fluoridated" — I would add 
on, for instance, the additional 18 that are attached to Belleville, 111., 
when they refused fluoridation, and I could count Belleville as "19 com- 
munities.'' In this method of tally I could very truthfully say that 
the number of "communities refusing or throwing out fluoridation 
would be about two or three thousand communities," totaling perhaps 
about 30 or 40 million people, or more. 

Fluoridation has lost its momentum; with all its ])ropaganda, it 
has come to an almost complete stop as citizens and officials are becom- 
ing aware of the other side of the controversy. 

In Beverly Hills the city council stated that they "were not quali- 
fied to medicate the people." In Daytona Beach the promoters re- 
fused to sign legal papers assuming any responsibility for possible 
damage in that council meeting, so it was defeated. 

In Chicago it is now refused by officials for the first time, because 
of its compulsion, toxic element, the increase of deaths in Grand Rap- 
ids, allergies in people, objections of the food industries, and the 
unanswered questions. In Worcester, Mass., it is declared unlawful 
for that city, by the city solicitor. 

In Ottawa, 111., there was the usual promotion for fluoridation, then 
tests were made of their water from the deep wells which showed they 
already had more than the recommended amount naturally. Their 
teeth were no better than others ( Quincy Herald, November 30) , This 
same kind of fraud was started in Chester, Va., by the promoters, after 
which it was found that Chester already hacl more than the correct 
amount in their water. The dentist admitted that "tooth decay among 


Chester children is about as bad as anywhere else" (Albany (N. Y.) 
Knickerbocker News) . 

Hundreds of such cities have defeated fluoridation and others have 
thrown it out because of its corrosive damage to equipment and pipes 
and the bad results in some of the people. In some 18 or more cities 
it is now discarded ; as in Sheridan, Wyo., where it ate up the pipes 
in just 3 weeks, and in Williamstown, Mass., it clogged the equipment 
and failed to operate properly. In Knoxville, Iowa, they couldn't 
clear the clinkers out of the clogged equipment and no uniformity of 
dose had been obtained. The whole ugly story was told on radio sta- 
tion KRNT, January 20, 1954. 

In Waukeeny, Kans., fluoridation was thrown out and an ordinance 
passetl to prevent any such additions to their water except to purify 
or soften it. 

In New Martinsville, W. Va., it was thrown out because citizens 
stated, "This is in direct violation of the fourteenth amendment. We 
demand action." 

In Tyler, Tex., it was thrown out by contention "its use is injurious 
to health and that its presence. in public water constitutes enforced 

In Delavan, Wis., after a terrific battle by PTA and other press 
l)romotion, it was stated that — 

* * * the poison hazard is great enough that your city council carries heavy 
liability insurance — at your expense, of course — in case of public disaster, etc. 

Tlien it was thrown out by vote on April 6, 1954. 

And now, let us examine the reports of what has happened to the 
people. Remember that we have been promised that there have been 
no bad results from fluoridation. In Akron, Ohio, an attorney stated 
to the councilmen that — 

My wife became ill in January Her mouth became inflamed. It appeared as 
though she had measles in her mouth. A doctor told us she was suffering from 
'■fluorosis." We obtained new water * * * the inflammation disappeared * * * 
When I am sick I go to a doctor. I don't go to the jimior chamber of commerce. 
Oihers said they "itched" all over * * * 

Judge Wanamaker * * * said that he has suffered headaches from drinking 
that "fluoridated water" * * * said those who want fluoride can buy it at 

Akron then threw out fluoridation. 

In Wichita Falls, Tex., still fluoridating until they get their refer- 
endum, there are many cases of skin rash and itching. Mr. and Mrs. 
N. had severe stomach trouble, and both their sons had a "sore itching 
condition" until they started using pure bottled water. H. E. W. lost 
minnows in his fishing camp using the fluoride water and had to filter 
that water through charcoal because the minnows died. 

Dr. Parnell can't make his Kolner-Wasserman tests for syphilis 
with that fluoride water even after distilling it three times, and now 
has to procure rain water. 

In Hastings, New Zealand, where a fluoride experiment was started 
last year, they are organized now to throw it out, and a resident of 
Hastings complained through the press that the fluoride water was 
affecting her mouth. 

In San Francisco, still under fluoridation. Dr. Gould's patients have 
"distressing dermatitis of the whole body, a badly cracked and swollen 


tongue, painfully inflamed inner cheeks and deep cracks at either 
corner of the mouth." 

In such cities as Sheboygan, the mottling has begun to show on the 
teeth of those unfortunate children, and as Dr. Brehmer states, "these 
teeth are not pretty." The mottled teeth have been noticed in New- 
burgh, and we must remember that the dental experts have admitted 
that this could be the case in a certain percentage of the children. 

Tormented people in Britain, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, and 
Australia have asked for all the information we can send them about 
other cities, and have implored for a release from the United States 
inspired fluoride promotion which is stemming from the WHO 
through traveling fellowships awarded to many foreign health officers 
who are escorted through our fluoridation experiments and then re- 
turn to their countries and try to install such experiments in their own 
countries. We wonder just whose money is paying for all the promo- 

In Milwaukee is a gentleman who had to give up his job delivering 
mail because he got so sick when he had to drink so much water during 
the summer months and now has to have bottled spring water near 
him at all times. In such cities as Lakeland, Fla. ; Longview, Wash. ; 
Tallahassee ; Cincinnati ; Austin, Tex. ; and Elyria, Ohio, the expen- 
sive equipment has been bought and never used because of the reversed 
decisions. In Saskatoon, Canada, the officials ordered the machinery 
but so much opposition has obtained a plebiscite vote for the next 
election and the $14,000 worth of equipment is not being used. 

There has been a great, unending controversy about the increase 
in deaths in Grand Rapids since fluoridation so we look aga«in at the 
words of their own health officer. Dr. Prothro, who is quoted in the 
October 28, 1952, Grand Rapids Press, in addressing the PTA Health 
Institute, as saying: 

Heart disease deaths in Kent County (Grand Rapids) still are high. Kent has 
8 percent more deaths from that disease than any other county in Michigan. 
There is a high incidence of cancer and accident deaths in the county * * *. 

I know a family in Seattle who used a fluoride prescription until 
they broke out with a strange kind of skin rash, mostly on the neck 
and chin, so they stopped the use of this dose, and they tried it twice 
to be smre it was the fluoride that caused the rash both times. 

At a great, tremendous cost in time and money spent away from 
their own little families, hundreds of citizens have battled or organized 
together to wrest themselves from under the control of this tyrannical 
Government Bureau. They have had to contend with a vicious dental 
or medical group, a self-righteous PTA, or misguided chamber of 
commerce, a domineering Kiwanis Club or Rotary or union organi- 
zation, in most cases a vicious press, and sometimes even the local legal 
association has dared to state that fluoridation should be accepted. 
At the present time, individuals are spending their fortunes in court 
and in appeals to higher courts to free themselves and all other Ameri- 
cans from the forced medication of these power-grabbing bureaucrats 
and professional officials. 

We would ask that an investigation be made into the improper use 
of funds by the United States Public Health Service and that exam- 
inations be made to see if the schools of public health and our dental 
schools are promoters for fluoridation because of the grants-in-aid 


received from the United States Public Health Service. We ask for 
a thorough examination of the ethics of both the American Dental 
Association and of the American Medical Association, and of the 
American press. And we would ask that the proper department bring 
to justice all those responsible for the start of the fluoridation experi- 
ments upon the American people. 

We pray for an early enactment of the bill, H. R. 2341. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Robinson, Our next witness is 
Dr. Leo Spira. 


Dr. Spira. Mr. Chairman, my name is Leo Spira ; my address is 344 
West 72d Street, New York 23, N. Y. 

I am a graduate of Vienna University and I hold the degree of 
doctor of medicine ; I am also a graduate of Prague University, being 
a doctor of medicine of that university. 

For my research work on animals on the subject of fluorine, extended 
over a period of 4 years, I obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy 
in medicine at London University. 

I am holder of a diploma of member of the Royal College of 
Surgeons, and licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, London, 

I am member of the Medical Society of the State of New York and 
of the County Medical Society of New York. 

I have been approached by very many people from all over the 
country, ever since I came to live and continue my work here in 
November 1951, with a request to help in this fight against chronic 
fluorine poisoning which is bound to come in due course as a result 
of adding fluorine to the public water supplies. In reply to a ques- 
tion on whose behalf I am giving evidence, I would say that I am 
talking principally on my own behalf and on behalf of all those who 
have the same opinion as I have, in the hope that I will be able to 
convince, through my evidence and through my numerous writings, 
that adding fluorine to the public water supply is, in my judgment, 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my evidence is going 
to be confined to the purely medical aspect of the action of fluorine. 

Fluorine is a nerve poison. It affects the nervous system : its vege- 
tative section which supplies the inner organs of the body and the 
endocrine glands, as well as its central and peripheral sections — that 
is to say, the brain, the spinal cord, and the peripheral nerves. The 
long-continued daily ingestion of at least 1 milligram of fluorine, 
equivalent to 1 liter of drinking water with a concentration of 1 part 
per million a day, is sufficient to cause the first evidence of chronic 
fluorine poisoning. 

Organs regulated by the parathyroid glands — 4 glands embedded 
1 each in the upper and lower pole of both the right and left lobe of the 
thyroid gland — are most frequently affected. They are the skin and 
its appendages, the teeth, nails, and hair. 

Damage to the skin is manifested by itching, even without visible 
cause, by outbreaks of boils and weals, by athlete's foot, and, in more 
pronounced cases, by eczema in any part of the body. 


.e teeth undergo changes characterized by mottling, which is 
^jroduced by the ingestion of drinking water with a concentration 
of at least 1 part per million during the period of calcification of the 
permanent teeth — that is to say, during the first 8 years of life. Mot- 
tled teeth are universally accepted as the first visible external sign of 
(chronic fluorine poisoning. Its other effects are bleeding of the gums, 
gingivitis, and pyorrhea. 

The nails become so brittle that even a slight accidental knock on 
a hard object — for example, the edge of a table — causes them to break 
across. Chalky-white specks, patches, and horizontal lines, closely 
similar to those observed on mottled teeth, develop on their surface, 
giving rise to the designation of "mottled nails." The commonest fea- 
ture is the occurrence of raised longitudinal ridges on the finger and 
toe nails. 

The hair falls out prematurely, leading to a more or less pronounced 
baldness at an early age. 

All these lesions are the result of a disturbed utilization of calcium, 
which is stored in the body as a material as indispensable to life and 
health as is oxygen. The calcium metabolism is regulated by the 
parathyroid glands. If their normal function is interfered with by 
the deleterious action of fluorine, the body is deprived of calcium, and 
only the therapeutic administration of a calcium salt will replenish 
the deficiency and improve the condition of the victim. 

Lesions of the organs regulated by the parathyroid glands (skin, 
teeth, nails, and hair) are frequently accompanied by brown patches 
of skin on various parts of the body, closely similar to those encoun- 
tered in chronic arsenical poisoning. They are evidence of a disturbed 
function of another set of endocrine glands — the adrenals — which 
legulate the pigmentation of the body. On treatment directed against 
chronic fluorine poisoning, the brown patches of skin disappear. 
Other evidence of fluorine aflecting the adrenal glands are low blood 
jn-essure, general lassitude, tiredness, and lack of energ}^ 

The coexistence of large breasts in young men and of female distri- 
bution of pubic hair, giving rise to the designation of "feminized 
males," indicates that yet other endocrine glands are often affected by 
the long-continued ingestion of toxic amounts of fluorine. 

The fact that all these glands are regulated by the vegetative 
nervous systenr indicates that fluorine has a predilection for it at its 
origin, namely, at the base of the brain. 

Moreover, those affected by fluorine in an advanced stage are sub- 
ject to fits of depression and even melancholia, and to a feeling of 
apprehension and irritability. It is thus obvious that the substance 
of the brain itself is involved in these cases. 

Neuralgiae in the arms and legs, and attacks of cram]is in the calves, 
occurring mainly at night during sleep, are clear evidence that the 
peripheral nervous system is likewise affected in chronic fluorine poi- 
soning. There are attacks of "pins and needles," producing the sensa- 
tion of deadness and numbness in the hands and fingers supplied by 
the ulnar nerve. It is known that fluorine attacks the ulnar nerve 
just as lead attacks the radial nerve. 

There is severe constipation lasting 2 or ?> days in mild cases and up 
to 7 days at a stretch in advanced cases of chronic fluorine poisoning. 
Constipation is associated with excessive gas formation in the bowels 


and with attacks of colicky pain in the abdomen. Blisters and cracks 
form on the mucous membrane of the mouth, causing pain on eating 
and talking. 

The symptomatology of chronic fluorine poisoning, as here re- 
counted, is based on an intensive clinical study which I personally 
carried out in London, England, since 1922 and, more especially, dur- 
ing the recent war on many thousand recruits, both male and female, 
serving in the British Army. It was duly recorded in 34 papei's 
published in important medical journals in this country, in Great 
Britain, and on the continent of Europe. 

The subjects examined were not exposed to any industrial hazard of 
chronic fluorine poisoning, and tliey were living in communities whose 
drinking water was either entirely free of fluorine or contained only 
insignificant traces of the poison, not sufficient to cause mottling of 
the teeth. It was, therefore, obvious that the fluorine causing these 
signs and symptoms was derived from sources other than drinking 
water. In fact, chemical analysis carried out by an expert public 
analyst i-evealed traces of the poison in practically all the articles of 
everyday food and drink examined, albeit only in quantities not suffi- 
cient for any one of them by itself to cause the mottling of the teeth 
and other coexistent signs of the disease. 

It is thus not tlie concentration of fluorine in any one article of food 
and drink that causes the disease, but the sum total of the poison 
ingested in the course of the day which must be considered. The 
average cup of tea, for example, contains as much fluorine as is con- 
tained in 2 to 3 tumblerfuls of drinking water with a concentration 
of 1 part per million of the poison. Sea fish is another important 
source of fluorine intake, sardines, for example, containing a concen- 
tration of as much as 15.6 parts per million. The chemical substances 
used for sedimentation, filtration, purification, and sterilization of 
drinking water derived from rivers, lakes, ponds, and so forth, were 
found to contain large amounts of fluorine. 

For spraying fruit trees and vegetables, fluorine compounds are 
used, and samples of chemical fertilizers were found to contain as 
much as 400 parts per million of the poison. Dissolved in the soil, it 
is absorbed by plants and introduced into the body. In the manufac- 
ture of aluminum, too, which is widely used in the kitchen, the fluorine- 
mineral cryolite, is an unavoidable raw material. In the process of 
cooking, acids and alkalies contained in the food corrode the metal 
and set its impurities free so as to contaminate tlie food. 

Fluorine is a powerful insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide, and 
has replaced arsenical preparations as a preservative added to canned 
food, fruit, juices, and so forth, since its use is not strictly regulated 
by law as arsenic is. We are thus in fact surrounded by fluorine and 
caught in its trap, without being able to escape or to protect ourselves. 

Fluorine is a cumulative poison, and the amount accumulated and 
P constantly increased by its daily ingestion with numerous articles 
of food and drink exerts a suppressing effect on the enzymes, material 
indisi:»ensable for the proper utilization of food and for the mainte- 
nance of the organic functions of the body. The harmful effect of 
fluorine will depend, amongst others, on the susceptibility of the 
person ingesting it, on the quantity ingested, and on the length of 
time during which it has been ingested. 

48391—54 13 


These being the true facts concerning the action of fluorine, there 
is no need for an undue stretch of the imagination to realize that 
any increase, however slight, in the amount of the poison ingested 
is bound to increase the risk and gravity of chronic fluorine poison- 
ing. This is precisely what would happen if to the amount already 
ingested a further dose would would be added to the drinking water. 
Tlie margin between the tolerated quantity of the poison and the 
quantity producing signs and symptoms of poisoning is very narrow. 
The risk of transgressing the threshold of fluorine tolerance in the 
older generations, as well as in those chronically ill, suffering, for 
example, from kidney disease and unable efficiently to excrete the 
poison, is a very real one. 

In view of all these facts, it is utterly impossible to state whether 
the addition of as little fluorine as would make up a concentration 
of one part per million in the drinking water could or could not be 
detrimental to health, since there is no person in the whole country 
whose body was entirely free from it before a further amount of the 
poison has been added to the drinking water. 

To ascertain that the clinical findings obtained on man were in 
fact due to nothing but the action of fluorine, I carried out animal 
experiments at the department of physiology, Middlesex Hospital 
Medical School, London, England. Gradually increasing doses of 
sodium fluoride were added to the drinking water of experimental 
rats. It was observed that, whereas in man the ingestion of drinking 
water with a concentration of as little as 1 part per million is suffi- 
cient to produce mottling of the teeth as the first external visible 
evidence of chronic fluorine poisoning, in my rats mottling was pro- 
duced by the ingestion of a water with a concentration of not less 
than 60 to 100 parts per million of the poison. This means that 
man is 60 to 100 times more sensitive to fluorine than rats are. 

In the course of the experiments several signs of poisoning developed 
which were identical with those clinically observed on man. The 
earliest among them was intense scratching without any visible cause. 
Later on, deep sores developed on the skin in various parts of the 
body, accompanied by loss of hair. On the scalp a baldness occurred 
which was very similar in its distribution to the baldness seen in 
man. On replacing the fluoridated water by distilled water, which 
is free from fluorine, and on addition of calcimn to the food, the sores 
healed promptly and there was a complete regrowth of hair over 
the denuded areas. 

X-ray examination showed a diminished scrotal shadow, and the 
testicles degenerated to such a degi-ee that they could be regarded 
as having to all intents and purposes disappeared altogether. 

At autopsy, the thyroid gland was found to have undergone pro- 
found changes; it was enlarged and histological examination revealed 
a lesion similar to that observed in toxic goiter in man. 

The kidneys where the organ showing advanced damage ; under the 
microscope they could not be distinguished from those seen in chronic 
nephritis (Bright's disease) in man. 

Several investigators reported the development of gastric and du- 1 
odenal ulcers in their experimental animals. I could find none in 
my rats, probabh^ due to the fact tliat I increased the concentration 
of fluorine in their drinking water slowly. 


The results obtained from the clinical examination on man and 
from the animal experiment were significant enough for me to try 
to find out whether they could be utilized in a practical manner for 
application in certain diseases of a hitherto obscure origin. 

A man suffering from chronic nephritis (Bright's disease) in its 
terminal stage was submitted to treatment directed against chronic 
fluorine poisoning, after every kind of treatment had failed. After 
4 weeks' treatment he was restored to a useful life. 

In another man, a gastric and duodenal ulcer, which radiologically 
had the appearance of malignant degeneration, was completely healed 
as a result of treatment directed against chronic fluorine poisoning. 
After 5 weeks, no trace of either of the two ulcers could radiologic- 
ally be detected. 

Children wlio since birth were for several years afflicted with severe 
eczema all over the body, for which no external treatment brought any 
relief, were after 2 or' 3 months' treatment directed against chronic 
fluorine poisoning completely cured without any local applications. 

Of two patients suffering from netal illness, which was complicated 
by the presence of brown discoloration of the skin characteristic of 
chronic fluorine poisoning, one could be discharged from hospital 
as completely cured from both mental illness and the pigmentation of 
the skin following not more than 3 months' treatment directed against 
chronic fluorine poisoning; the other was considerably improved. 

The action of fluorine is practically identical with that of arsenic. 
In fact, tlie two poisons occur in nature frequently together. Where- 
as, however, the methods of detecting even slight traces of arsenic 
are reliable, those for fluorine have not yet reached the same degree 
of accuracy. 

Further thorough study of the action of even small doses of fluorine 
is a matter of vital importance. Basing their harmful effect, when 
ingested with fluoridated drinking water on top of quantities con- 
taminating everyday articles of food and drink, on cursory inspection 
alone is not admissible. My own endeavor to carry out large-scale 
treatment directed against chronic fluorine poisoning on a representa- 
tive number of patients at hospitals for mental and other chronic 
diseases of a hitherto obscure origin failed mainly because of regu- 
lations which decree that, at the age of 65 years, no medical man 
shall work within the walls of any hospital. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is a very con- 
densed short resume of a work which was extended over more than 
a quarter of a century. In the course of my investigation, clinically 
carried out whilst I was serving in the British Army, and experi- 
mentally at the department of physiology, Middlesex Hospital, Med- 
ical School, London, England, every step I took was supervised by 
my chief and by my colleagues who watched the progress of the work. 
Needless to say, the results of my work would not have been accepted 
for publication by the outstandingly important medical journals in 
this country, as well as in Great Britain and on the Continent of 
Europe ; if they would not have been verified as being based on truth 
ind nothing but the truth. In the course of my investigations, both 
?linically on man and on experimental animals, I had a large number 
i :)f lantern slides prepared, and they show every step which I took 
I rt the work. 


I lioped when I eaine here that I would be allowed to show you these 
lantern slides, which I brouoht with me. Unfortunately, I realize 
the time is too short and facility is lackino- for me to be able to show 
Mil at I have done. 

Should it be necessary, I will be happy to be at your disposal and 
show these slides. They will depict the story of what my work has 
achieved better than any spoken or written word can. 

Thank you, ^Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for hav- 
mo; iiiven me the chance to say what I had to say durino- the very 
short time at my disposal. 

The riiAiR:NrAN. Dr. Spira, it has been a very great pleasure and 
very helpful to have had the benefit of the testimony that you have 
presented to the connnittee. We realize that it is a resnlt of many 
years' study and careful observations upon your part and that you are 
convinced as to the correctness of the views you have expressed. 

And Mrs. Robinson, I think, should be commended for the fact that 
she irave you her time, in order that you mio-ht have an opportimity 
of o-ivino- an extended explanation of the work and study that you 
have made in this matter. 

]N[rs. Roiuxsox. I thoujrht that you would want to hear Dr. Spira 
and what he had to say. 

The Chairman. I regret that the time is such that we do not have 
the opportunity of seeing the pictures but if any members of the 
committee desire at some off-hoiu" to see them, I am sure that you will 
be glad to show the pictures, if they will so indicate to you. 

Dr. SriKA. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that. 

The Chaik:viax. The committee will recess until '2 o'clock. In doing 
so may I anucnince that there are, according to my list, two witnesses 
in opposition who have not been heard. That is Dr. Paul Manning 
and Dr. ^[ax Day. Am I correct in that statement? 

It will be the intention of the connnittee when it meets at 2 o'clock 
to hear you 2 gentlemen so that the first witness after we reconvene 
will be you 2 gentlemen. 

There have been some who have spoken for the opposition this 
mornitig, and that will enable us to give this time to you. After that 
we will proceed to hear the witnesses in opposition. 

The committee will stand in recess. 

(Thereupon, at 12:28 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m., 
of the same day.) 


(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m.. pursuant to recess.) 
The Chairman. The first witness will be Dr. Max Ginns, senior 
dental consultant, "Worcester City Hospital, Worcester, Mass. 


Dr. Ginns. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name 
is Dr. ^lax Ginns of Worcester, ^lass. I should like to submit this for 
the record. 

(The information submitted by Dr. Ginns has been placed in the 
committee files.) 


Dr. GiNNs. So that the proponents may be fully informed, I shall 
state my qualifications. 

I am a graduate of Tufts College Dental School. 

I was appointed chief of dental service, Worcester City Hospital, 
in 1921. Also in charge of dental clinics in the out-patient depart- 

I was formerly a lecturer on oral diseases at the cit}^ hospital 
Nurses Training School. 

I established training for dental interns, city hospital, giving in- 
struction in oral surgery, dental diagnosis, and clinical dentistry. 

I was chief dental surgeon, with rank of captain. Dental Reserve, 
with the 3L5th Cavalry until 1938. 

At present I am senior dental consultant, staff of the Worcester 
City Hospital. 

I served as chairman. 1942, of the Emergency War Study Club 
dental program. 

I was formerly director of Quota Club Clinics. 

I am past chairman of the educational committee of State and 
local dental societies. 

I am past chairman of the dental health councils. State and local. 

I am a member of the American Dental Association, the Massachu- 
setts Dental Society, and the Worcester District Dental Society. 

I was appointed chairman of a special committee to reexamine the 
proposition concerning fluoridation of Worcester water supply by 
the local dental society in December 1951. 

I was chairman of the Alpha Omega Dental Society in 1951-52. 

The Chairman. You may be seated, Doctor. 

Dr. GiNNS. As a loyal member of the ADA back in 1946 I, too, was 
very enthusiastic about topical fluoride treatments for the prevention 
of decay, until I found out that its value was highly exaggerated. 
As time went on I gradually acquired information that brought about 
a reversal of my former attitude. 

My visits to Hereford and Amarillo, Tex., and other points in 
Texas, and then to Xewburgh and Kingston, N. Y., and then to Brant- 
ford and Stratford, and then to Farnumsville, Mass., 5 miles outside 
of the city of Worcester, revealed shocking variations, with the one- 
sided story I had been given, through the ADA and Public Health 
literature. You shall see for yourselves as I go on with my exper- 

I have had to curtail mv talk, so I shall present for your considera- 
tion a petition which I obtained from 119 Worcester dentists. 

By tlie way, I have a special delivery that came to me yesterday, 
to my hotel, from 10 physicians of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 
whohave signified their desire to add their names to the petition of 
the 119 Worcester dentists opposed to fluoridation. 

I should like to read my petition. This as a photostatic copy for 
your inspection, if you wish, of the original ])etition. Tlie petition 
is as follows : 

Petition (ipposed to flu tridati n of vrorct ster water snitplios. We, the under- 
sigued Members of ADA. Massaeiiiisetts Dental t^oeiety and Worcester District 
Dental Society. haTing heard, since approval without discussion prior to ap- 
proval, the other side of the lluoridation plan ; and having learned of its danger- 
ous and unscientific nature ; that it is not essential to development of good 
teeth : and that it does not prevent tooth decay ; that there are better and 


less devious ways to control tooth decay without pollutiug our water supplies: 
and compelling an entire Nation to drink medicated water wliicli is. of no value 
to them ; which is known to be harmful to all human beings as a slow and ac- 
cumulative poison ; that all benefits attributed to fluorides are not due to flour- 
ides at all, but are due to better nutrition, better hyyieue, and better super- 
vision. All the foregoing: statements, being supported by universities in many 
parts of the country, by eminent scientists, biochemists, physicians, dentists, 
we demand that this hollow approval of the Worcester District Dental So- 
ciety, obtained by telling only one side of the fluoridation story, and blocking 
every attempt to fully discuss the harmful side of fluoridation. 
We demand that this hollow approval be rescinded. 

Then follow 119 signatures of Worcester dentists. As I said, now 
there have been 10 physicians who have sent me this to be added to the 
list, and there will be more. The list of 10 physicians comes as a 
result of my talking to the medical society before I left Worcester. 

The medical society has been put in a very embarrassing situation. 
They know nothing about fluoridation, they admit, and many of them 
do not know it has even been approved. They have never heard of a 
meeting on fluoridation in the medical society, pro and con. It was 
simply obtained by a rtibber stamp of the medical society, approved 
by a few of the executives who were good fellows and O. K.'d it. That 
is all they know about it. They now realize they are in a position 
where they must answer to the people, because they have been silent 
too long. 

Now I want to speak about home rule and referendum, if I may ; 
home rule against ruling the home. 

Fluoridation began in 1945 in Newburgh and Kingston, N. Y., and 
other pilot areas as a strict secret to be kept under wraps for 10 years. 
The "strict secret to be kept under wraps for 10 years" has been quoted 
here. See Public Health Conference June 8, 1951. That document has 
been quoted here. 

It planted its one-sided propaganda without asking the people. 
Public Health bypassed the medical and dental profession. Public 
Health arrogated unto itself mandatory powers without any attempt 
at home rule. They ruled the homes of the commmiities by pressure 
and compulsion. 

About 1946 topical application to teeth — the swabbing of the teeth — 
was praised to the skies. They made all the claims for topical that they 
are now making for fluoridation of water supplies. Topical fell flat 
in about 2 years, and the rumblings of fluoridation of water supplies 
were being heard. 

A definite pattern developed in our society to control thought and 
speech. I have here something which you may obtain, perhaps, called 
Securing Community Acceptance for Fluoridation Through a Citi- 
zen's Committee for Fluoridation ; the American Dental Association. 

Some of these were even printed at city expense in our own city hall, 
with no identification as to where they came from. They were pur- 
ported to come from the ADA, but actually they came from city hall. 

In this pamphlet, I talked of thought control and speech control. 
Here is a list of "what you do say and what you do not say." You 
will notice that this pattern will be followed as a rule by proponents. 

Pamphlets of indoctrination What To Say and What Not To Say 
were mailed to the dental profession. Several hundred were printed 
at city hall at taxpayers' expense. 


Dr. Bull has been mentioned here. In the Journal of the American 
Dental Association, February 1952, he said, 

You must not tell the people. There may be some undesirable side effects. It's 
another sure way to defeat any or all programs. 

Fluoridation went on for 5 years before Public Health accepted 
it, from 1945 to 1950, Please note. And even in 1950 and as late as 
June 1951, they admitted they did not know about its toxicity or 
what its harmful effects might be. These are quotes from their own 
documents. Reference June 8, 1951. 

All along proclaiming to the people "fluoridation was safe," "no 
harm seen," "3 million people had been drinking it" and so forth and 
so forth; while wrangling amongst themselves looking for alibis. 
They were still without an answer to toxicity, and are still without 
the answer today. 

I want to show you gentlemen, if you have not heard about it, in 
these natural fluoride areas, millions of gallons of Ozarka water are 
being sold in carload lots in cities in five States. I am drinking it 
here* now, because I will not drink fluoridated water. I may have to 
take the food, but I am keeping it down to a minimum. 

Here is Ozarka water. This is a photostatic copy of the size of 
the carton. It cost me about $16 to bring it here, but I wanted to show 
it to you gentlemen. They pay $1 for 5 gallons in these naturally 
fluoridated areas, where proponents claim no harm is seen." Why? 
To avoid mottling decay, gum diseases, and crooked teeth. 

The question is often asked : What has crooked teeth go to do with 
it? As you have heard, fluorine is an antienzyme. There are many 
authorities for that. Professor Box of the University of Toronto is 
one of many. 

There is interference with bone development, causing a jumbling of 
the teeth. 

In the same year, 1950, one of the reasons you do not see many more 
dentists willing to come out against fluoridation because the mouth- 
piece for the dental profession comes through Public Health. I hap- 
pen to be one of a number who would not yield to this kind of thought 
■control. In the same year of 1950, our dental society Code of Ethics 
was revised. Section 20 says — and there are many people who do not 
know about it : 

Education of the public. A dentist may properly anticipate in a program for 
the education of the public on matters pertaining to dentistry, provided, such a 
program is in keeping with the dignity of the profession and has the approval of 
the dentists of a community or State, acting through the appropriate agency of 
the dental society. 

I ask you, gentlemen, is this to be our pattern for the future ? Are 
you willing to make your dentists vassals of the State? I for one 
refuse to become one. 

Here is an excerpt from the Dental Health Council, January 9, 
1952, Boston, Mass. This comes from the assistant secretary of the 
Council on Dental Public Health, and it reads : 

Almost without exception, administrative changes alfecting dentistry are being 
made with absolutely no consultation with the dentnl profes^sion in the States 
involved. It will be necessary to foresee the possii)ility of such situations and 
to support positive action before the administrative pattern has been irrevocably 
changed. Dr. W. Philip Phair. D. D. S. 


I want to say, you cannot build hardness into teeth by adding fluori- 
dation. Here are teeth [exhibiting teeth] that come from Aurora, 
111., exposed to fluoridation for years. 

Here are teeth [exhibiting teeth] that come from Worcester, Mass., 
subjected to the same acid influence of lactic acid you find in the mouth. 

I defy any public health man to give me a tooth from any area that 
will not succumb to acid. 

The chemico-parasitic theory of Miller, which we all accept as of 
this time, is the theory of decay, the chemical parasitic theory. It is 
not a question of hardness. That is a fallacy. It is a contradiction of 
theory taught in the schools, which is a matter of record in our text 
books. You can subject any tooth from any area, and it will succumb 
to acid and become decalcified. It is a matter of chemical environment 
and not a mechanical hardness. 

Here are the teeth to show it, if you would like to see them. [Ex- 
hibiting teeth.] 

I want to say that fluorine is not essential. In the city of Bridge- 
port, Conn., where the hygienist originated, Dr. Fones in 1915 t» 1918 
produced remarkable results by training nurses to be what we now 
know as dental hygienists. I do not see the dental liygienists on the 
list of approval of American Dental Association. They are the most 
closely allied to the dental profession, and they only exist in our 
offices because Dr. Fones produced a reduction in tooth decay up to 
57% percent in the schools of Bridgeport, Conn., through good hy- 
giene, good nutrition, and good supervision. 

If it w^as done then, it can be done now, which proves fluorides are 
not essential. 

At Farnumsville, Mass., outside of Worcester, we have conducted 
tests on this. 

I have a letter from the State public health department proving that 
in these natural fluoride areas decay is just as rampant as any place 
else — 5,000 schoolchildren in the city of Worcester were subjected to 
topical application which was supposed to do everything fluoridation 
is supposed to do. In 2 years the local public health reported it was 
a complete failure. 

I perhaps will conclude at this point. I do not want to run over 
into Dr. Manning's time. If there are any questions I would be glad 
to answer them. 

The Chairman. Any questions, gentlemen ? ]Mr. Heselton ? 

Mr. Heselton. Doctor, you quoted from some pamphlet which I 
believe you had, Things To Say and Things Not To Say. I was not 
clear as to where that pamphlet was issued. I thought you said it 
was city hall. 

Dr. GiNNS. Some of these were printed at city hall, purporting to 
come from Chicago. This is on the cover. It is marked^ — 

Securing Community Acceptance for Fluoridation Through a Citizens Committee 
for Fluoridation — 

issued by the American Dental Association Council on Dental Health, 
March 1952 ; and they must have copies of this. It says here : 

Do not say this and do not say that. 

I will describe it to you. It says : 

Do not use the words "artificial fluoridation." Do not refer to "sodium flu- 
oride." Do not use the words "rat poison." 


By the way, they were the first to use the words "rat poison.-' Tliey 
were the first, and they object to it now. 

JNIr. IIesei/iox. I was interested in the document. 

Dr. GiNNS. O. K. There is more here. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Cliairman^ 

The Chair3Ian. Mr. AVilliams. 

Mr. "Williams. Dr. Ginns, I have been unable to attend these hear- 
ings before tliis afternoon. I must confess complete ignorance on 
the subject of fluoridation. I have listened to what you have had to 
say with a great deal of interest. 

In the photostat of the newspaper clipping which you passed around 
among us, I noticed that you are quoted as making reference to the 
terms "secrecy'" and "coercion." 

1 quote from what you have to say, reading from this clipping : 

"The pi'ufessioiial societies have lost the ball," Dr. Ginns told a legislative 

Going further the article states : 

Charging that the fluoridation movement has been advanced "with secrecy 
and coercion" — 

you were quoted as referring to it in that sense. 

I am not a doctor. I know nothing about medicine. I hardly know 
what the bone of contention is in this particular argument, other than 
that one side says water treated with fluorine will improve the health 
of the teeth of the people who drink it, and the other side says, as I 
understand it, that it is a slow poison. 

I am just wondering wdiat ''sinister'' movement, as you would indi- 
cate, is behind the fluoridation of water, and what is to be gained by 
those who seek to have the water so treated, perhaps, other than a 
sincere desire to improve the health of the public. 

Dr. Ginns. Well, if I had the time to go into my complete presen- 
tation I could have covered that to a degree. It is quite a lengthy 
story. I do not know how far you want me to go with it. 

I would like to say this: It has been said here this morning that 
highly eminent authorities have been quoted in favor of fluoridation. 
Maybe that will answer your question, to some extent, if I quote some 

Mr. Williams, Is the profit motive involved in any way ? 

Dr. Ginns. Yes, Beginning, it started with the FSA, They are 
objecting to Federal interference. It all started with the FSA. 

I do not want to mention names. Perhaps I will stay away from 
that. But Oscar Ewing was Chief of FSA at the time he was chief 
counsel of the Aluminum Co. of America. It seems to stem from 

If you will read the Congressional Record, Congressman Miller has 
referred to it. You will find much of that in the Congressional Rec- 
ord of Congressman Miller a year ago, 

I would like to give you some authorities to substantiate that. Dr. 
Bort G. Anderson, the associate professor of surgery at Yale Uni- 
versity School of Medicine, says that this problem cannot be solved 
by parliamentary maneuvering. Fluorine is not the answer to dental 

The Forsyth Dental Infirmary has been mentioned, with Dean Mar- 
jerison and, I think. Dr. Herme. 


I shall mention Dean Marjerison, now the director of Forsyth Den- 
tal Infirmary and formerly dean of Tufts College Dental School, who 
is opposed to fluoridation. I have it here. 

The Guggenheim Foundation of New York City, which is a large 
clinic, as you know, for the special benefit of children, had experience 
with topical and found more decay in about 175 children after topi- 
cal fluoride than before these applications. 

Now, the University of Texas has been mentioned here. It is op- 
posed to it. At least some of the professors are ; we know about Dr. 

The University of New Mexico wrote a pamphlet on the menace of 
fluorine to health. 

At the University of Arizona, with 9 to 10 parts per million, the 
Drs. Smith recommend filtering it out of their water over powdered 

I mentioned the University of Toronto. Professor Box has indi- 
cated that where fluoridation is present naturally, the prevalence of 
gum disease is very high. 

Wliom are we going to believe? Either the schools or the public 
health men. 

Mr. Williams. My purpose in asking the question was more to try 
to ascertain the background of this controversy than it was to at- 
tempt to distinguish as to the merits of the arguments of the two 
opposing sides. 

I will ask you this question, as to the bone of contention here, as to 
whether we should or should not permit this to be done. Does the 
controversy stem from an honest disagreement among men of medi- 
cine as to the benefits or the dangers of fluoridation ? 

Dr. GiNNS. It does result from an honest difference of opinion, and 
it has never happened before in the history of medicine that we have 
split on an issue. On penicillin or other things we have sat around 
the table as professional men did and we discussed our problems and 
we respected each other's opinions. 

Mr. WiLLL^MS. My question is this : Does this argument stem pri- 
marily from that, or does it go deeper and have its roots in some mer- 
cenary consideration of some selfish interest group of some kind? 

Dr. GiNNS. I think it is both, perhaps. It has a mercenary back- 
ground and it seems to be a blunder on the part of certain men who 
will not admit that they are wrong, although eventually they will. 
That is my bone of contention. 

We are not advocating it. It has been asked of us : 

Do you think public health will deliberately harm the people? 

That question should be revei-sed. We are not advocating anything. 
It is incumbent upon them, I think the Supreme Court ruled, as I re- 
call, that those who advocate prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
there is no harm to fluoridation. We have the benefit of the children 
at heart. Are we murderers ? 

It is put in such a way that you would think that they were the 
benefactors and that we have no love for children. 

I have worked for children all of my life, without any salary, on 
the city hospital staff, so I have had an interest in children. 

Mr. WiLLLAMS. Granting that the issue of whether or not fluorida- 
tion is good or bad is not and probably will not be resolved for quite 


some time; nevei-tlieless if we could set that particular issue aside for 
the moment and assume that fluoridation were completely harmless, 
who would profit by adding fluoridation to the water? 

Dr. GiNNs. Well, you see, it started out with a $7i/^ million proposi- 
tion, to begin with. 

Mr. Williams. That is what I am getting to. What is behind this ? 

Dr. GiNNS. $71/2 million to begin with. It is in the record. To 

At the meeting of the child's health conference that is a matter of 
record. Many millions have been spent since. In 1952 an appropria- 
tion of $2 million more w^as asked for fluoridation. I think the Con- 
gress cut that down to $250,000. A month later I read in the Wash- 
ington report they had taken all the funds away. 

Mr. Williams. Who received that money, and in what way was it 
spent ? 

Dr. GiNNS. I think that was allotted to the American Dental As- 
sociation research group. I have it, in the Washington News here. 

Mr. Williams. Do you feel that the profit motive has an influence in 
the fluoridation movement? 

Dr. GiNNS. There is the sale of equipment. There is the sale of 
chemicals which have jumped in price. There are maintenance bu- 
reaus, statistical bureaus, and a whole rigamarole of bureaus off one 
tree. It certainly runs into money. 

They talk about 10 or 14 cents per capita to each person, but they 
do not talk about the millions of dollars that have been spent. That 
is a matter of record. Anybody who wants to laugh at it can, but 
it is in here. I do not know whether I have it with me or not. I 
could not bring everything. Those things are a matter of record. 

Yes, there is money in this fluoride bill. 

Mr. Williams. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hale ? 

Mr. Hale. Dr. Ginns, do you know historically when the first use 
of fluoridation in the city water supply occurred in this country ? 

Dr. GiNNS. You see, much of this has been kept a secret, but I do 
know as far back as 1945 artificial fluoridation came into being. That 
I do know. That was done at Newburgh; Kingston; Evanston, 111.: 
Brantf ord ; Stratford : and some mental institutions in Massachusetts 
where children who have no way of protecting themselves were sub- 
jected to this mass experiment. 

Why was it necessary to spend $7i/2 million to prove by artificial 
means through artificial statistics a natural phenomena that they 
claim had already been proved by nature ? 

Mr. Hale. I do not want to go into that. 

Dr. GixNS. Well, that is it. 

Mr. Hale. All I want to know is the chronology of the thing. 

Dr. Ginns. In 1945 is when artificial fluoridation came in, so far 
as I know. Artificial fluoridation. 

Mr. Hale. Some fluorine — a natural deposit — is in some parts of 
the country ? 

Dr. Ginns. Yes, but there is smog, naturally, in some parts of the 
country. You would not say it was essential everywhere because there 
was some smog somewhere. 


Mr. Hale. Have you any idea how many people in the United 
States today are drinking: water which has some artificial fluorine 
content ? 

Dr. GiNNS. I can only go by what I read in the public-health rec- 
ords, and they claim it is about 18 million people ; but I have shown 
you in these areas we have an equal amount drinkino- this and paying 
$1 for 5 gallons to get away from it. 

]Mr. Hale. Where does that Ozarka water come from ? 

Dr. GiNNS. From the Ozark Mountains, Eureka, Kans. ; and it is 
wonderful water. 

Mr. Hale. I would like to reconnnend the Poland Spring water 
from Poland, Maine. 

Dr. GiNNS. I will drink that, too. I will drink anything but fluo- 
ride water. 

Mr. Hale, I can assure you that is absolutely pure. 

Dr. GiNNS. The Poland, Maine, water is good water, and I hope 
that it can be kept that way. 

Mr. Hale. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen ? If 
not, we thank you. Dr. Ginns, for your appearance and the testimony 
you have given. 

Dr. GiNNs. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Dr. Paul Manning of Springfield, Mass., a prac- 
ticing dentist and a consultant in physiological chemistry is our next 



Dr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Manning, a prac- 
ticing dentist of Springfield, Mass., registered in Massachusetts and 
in California in the year 1913. 

Because some aspersions have been cast upon objections to the mas- 
sive experiment called fluoridation. I would like to say that the as- 
persions to the efl^ect that we are incapable of harmonious agreement 
with our colleagues in the profession — may I be seated, sir ? 

The Chairman. That is your privilege. 

Dr. Manning. I would rather stand, sir. unless I am ordered to. I 
understood that the witnesses were ordered to be seated. 

I would like to explain that as a young man I held office in the 
dental societies. I think it is of no importance, but evidently it has 
developed in the course of these hearings that it is of some importance 
to put it in the record, so I put in a matter which in the ordinary course 
I have deemed unimportant. I wish to conform to the rules and 
tendencies of the committee to the fullest extent. 

Mr. Chairman, we have asked politely to be left out of the massive 
experiment called by the fanciful and nondescriptive name of fluorida- 
tion of water supplies, a term which you will find, I think, in no dic- 
tionary ; not in any I have examined. 

It is a perfect trade-mark. I am quite sure it is registerable as a 
trade-mark by its inventors. I would like to discover the name of the 
inventors of the term "fluoridation." If it were possible to do so we 
would be one step along toward the eventual discovery of the motiva- 


tion for what is most certainly the most foolish and imjiistifiable 
experiment ever carried out either upon voluntary or upon involun- 
tary human subjects. 

1 lune attempted a number of times to define "fluoridation." I 
attempted first to call it "fluori nation" and I tried to push my col- 
leagues out of the silly position of inventing a name for a newly 
invented procedure. The success that I hope for was denied by hard 
and obstinate attitudinizing on the part of my colleagues who have 
committed themselves to a vain folly by a method never before con- 
ceived or considered by any professional group in the Avorld ; refusing 
to be diverted from their original purpose. So we passed on. 

I would like to read to the committee, Mr. Chairman, one of the most 
exciting pieces of prose — composition — I have ever read either in the 
scientific line or in the lurid fiction which I may have followed as a 
younger man. This is an extract which must come in here in my opin- 
ion, if you will permit it, in the limited time which is granted, as 
documenting the arbitrary selection. I would like to put "selection" in 
quotes if you please, to refer it back to the procedures which were car- 
ried on in Nazi Germany historically, to the arbitrary selection of 
involuntary and unconsenting human subjects of medical experi- 
mental research and treatment with fluorides ; which is to say, with a 
fluorine compound, also known as fluorene compound. 

The excerpt which I asked to be permitted to make is from Water 
and Sewage Work, a reputable trade journal with a scientific cast — 
98 : o, March 1951, page 98. The name of the article is. Water Fluori- 
dation at Charlotte, N. C. 

This begins with : 

While April 1, 1949— 

1 remind you this is April Fool's Day I am referring to, and that it was 
chosen with premeditation, which I assert here as opinion — and I am 
sorry to say w ith giggles — by men on the public payroll : 

While April 1, 1949, was proclaimed as •'Fluoridation Day" by the mayor, and 
a public ceremony was held at the lilter plant, at which time the chemical feeder 
was started, the actual application of sodium fluoride was deliberately delayed 
until April 25. This period between April 1 and 25 led one Charleston, S. C, 
newspaper to editorialize on "Fluorinization" due to the fact that Charlotte 
newspapers had been giving wide publicity to the literally dozens of complaints 
which had poured into the health and water departments daily concerning 
killing of goldfish, horrible taste, ruined photographer's films, stained laundry, 
and so forth. 

Now comes a sentence — and this is interpolated — which ends with 
an exclamation point. A scientific article. There are two sentences 
here, one following the other, which betray the frame of mind of the 
author of the paper, if you please, jSIr. Cliairman. 

These and many more undesirables were attributed to fluoride. At the height 
of public reaction the press sought to correct false impressions by announcing 
that up to that time no fluoride had been added to the water. Then without 
further announcement fluoridation was immediately begun and no further com- 
plaints were received for about a week, when suddenly the entire ice manufac- 
turing industry reported — 

and so on and so on. Just a lot of armchair chemistry follows, and 
it is not of any importance to you, Mr. Chairman, or to me. This has 
nothing whatever to do with chemistry. 

This wildly uncontrolled experiment upon unconsenting and imin- 
formed human beings has absolutely nothing whatever to do either 


with the private practice of dentistry or of medicine or with public- 
health medicine, preventive or otherwise. I make it as a flat state- 
ment, and I am prepared to adduce proof by the simplest of mathe- 
matical means, simple arithmetic. 

It is hard for a man who has conducted himself honestly in the 
practice of dentistry for as many years as I have to read that and 
remain undisturbed, but I am told by our erstwhile friends in public 
health in the United States Public Health Service — which I want to 
distinctly differentiate from the employees of those services in all 
that I say today. I want to make the distinct differentiation between 
those institutions which when their doors are closed at night remain 
just piles of stone and the men who inhabit those offices. 

It is a very hard thing for a man who engaged in the practice of 
dentistry to have to listen to what we have heard, Mr. Chairman. I 
have just read you an excerpt which is supposed to conamand the 
admiration of a practicing dentist. I call it the chemical rape of 
Charlotte, N. C., carried out by premeditation and deceit, using 
coercion and ridicule as an instrumentality for the attainment of 
illegal ends on April Fool's Day, with a possible allusion to collusive 
conspiracy with the press, dependent upon the answer as to whether 
the press in receiving this flood of complaints had knowledge that 
the process had been deceitfully and in contradiction of warranty — 
given tliose people when they attended the hearings — withdrawn. 

An attempt to remedy this situation, which I have given in this 
brief time only to a small ]3ortion, we went first to our professional 
societies with diligence. Within 24 hours I prepared a protest against 
these arbitrary moves on the part of men who by the most severe 
overreaching of authority supposed that they could induct me and my 
family and my patients into a course of medical experimentation with 
the most disreputable poison in the whole list of commercial catalogs, 
and then moving on from the professional societies with only negative 
results and in some cases ridicule were obtained, a new experience 
to me, I ask you to believe in the whole of my professional life. 

We moved to the people. We went to the grassroots. We found 
those large gryppers who pick up the minnows, the joiners, the 
country clubbers were all engaged in advance. They had been pre- 
empted. We couldn't reach them. So we went to the grass roots. 
When you scoop around in the grassroots what do you get? There 
are different answers. You get America. That has been my expe- 
rience, and I am ashamed of none of it. 

We then went to the executive department of the local govern- 
ment and State government. Having exhausted our resources, not 
having obtained satisfaction or a reply in many cases, we went to 
the legislative. We recently had six bills in there, which all have 
been defeated for this term, the passage of any one of which would 
have attached a statutory definition of criminal to the overt act of any 
of those people involved in the arbitrary selection of unconsenting, 
uninformed human beings for medical experimentation with fluorine 

We will be back in the Massachusetts Legislature. We went there 
tlie first year with one bill, and that was put into what a highly placed 
politic:!! elected officer of this State described to nie as a limbo for 
])o]itica] hot potatoes. It was put into a recess study commission. 


I think, quite to the discomfiture of the initiators and conductors of 
the fluorine experiment, when it had apparently been disposed of in 
that way we came up with five more bills. I think we can go ahead 
by geometric progression each year until somebody who is subjected 
to tlie osmosis of fluorine, as unfortunately our friends here in 
Washington are, will give us a fortright response. 

It is a peculiar circumstance to have the formal invitation of this 
committee to a city where the very routine of which we complain is a 
condition for us to bear the precedent to our acceptance of youi- 

I ask you. Would it not be reasonable to call for a change of venue in 
such a case? I certainly wouldn't drink that stuff. I certainly would 
not permit any of my people, over whom I have control, to drink it. 
But this is a minor matter, gentlemen. Everyone in this room has 
gone to high school, and when he was in high school he learned about 

Osmosis is a physical principle which is ruled over not by this or 
that party but instead is ruled over by the Creator of the universe 
whose existence I admit without fear or shame. 

When anyone gets in a bathtub in Washington he is separated from 
the water in the bathtub by a permeable membrane, which is a portion 
of the definition of the physical principle of osmosis. 

In osmosis we have the passage of liquids through permeable mem- 
branes from the liquid of lower concentration on one side of the 
membrane, through the membrane into the liquid of gi'eater concen- 
tration on the other side. Recently I think I have compelled the 
admission of one of the principal initiators, a former dean of Harvard 
Dental School, in a Boston newspaper of the fact of physics, attested 
by the Creator of the universe who observes that he is as much bound 
by the laws of that court which he has set up as is the head of any 
man-instituted court. 

We have the admission that fluorine in the form of sodium fluoride 
or sodium silico-fluoride, and all the rest of the whole silly list is 
absorbable by the human body from water used in washing. 

My time has run out I sense. 

I wish to say this without giving offense to this committee, Mr. 
Chairman. I regard this committee as friends. The noble senti- 
ments expressed by the chairman for my dear friend. Dr. Robert J. H. 
Mick, of Laurel Springs, N. J., who is now in the service of his 
country, were appreciated. They turned my mind from hostility to 
the chairman of this committee, which was unwarranted if there wtus 
any in my heart, to complete admiration. 

I am convinced of the fairness of this committee because they 
are all Americans, Mr, Chairman. But if I can say it without offense, 
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, don't soak your bodies in W^ashington 
bathwater because if you do the inevitable effects of the operation of 
the laws of physics will come upon you. I am safe in Springfield. 
I think I can stake my reputation on it. We will never have this 
experiment performed on us in Springfield. 

I think it is almost a certainty at the present time that unless this 
is halted hj gentlemen who become interested in it it will result in 
open violence in many places at once and provide that little spark 
which the professors in Harvard (iradiiate School of Business Admin- 
istration talk about in their private talks to their alumni. 


I hope it is not offensive to you, Mr. Chairman, for me to say that. 
I have tried to illustrate by a few words of humility which come from 
the heart — just don't bathe in it for your own preservation, and the 
preservation of your services to your country which we value. I say 
it with the greatest sincerity. If I have exceeded the proper limits of 
witnesses' testimony, I beg to be excused. 

The Chairman. Doctor, we appreciate the sincerity with which 
you have spoken and the strong convictions which you have with 
respect to this matter. I also appreciate the admonition which has 
been extended to the members of Congress and all other people in the 
dangers they face. I have been here 26 years. I wish I could have 
had that advice in the beginning. Maybe I could have lived even 
longer than I will. 

Dr. Manning. I think an answer is not in order. It is only an 
observation. The process has been there only during a short period, 

The Chairman. During what time? For how long? 

Dr. Manning. I think only 2 or 3 years. It was put in here about 
1951, but that is not for record. We could look it up. 

]Mr. Heselton. I want to say Dr. INIanning is a neighbor of mine. 
You have come with an admonition, and I am considerablj^ puzzled at 
whether I am to remain unwashed during this hot weather. 

Mr. Hale. Will the gentleman have to go to Springfield to bathe ? 

Dr. Manning. It is a fine thing to do and we invite you most sin- 
cerely and we will drink spring water in Washington when it is 

To answer Representative Heselton, this is the type of a practical 
question which brings the truth out about this, and our only lack 
has been that the men to whome we have gone in industry have said, 
"We are too big for it. We cannot touch it." 

Within 24 hours I talked to a number of men wdio in their estimation 
think they are substantial businessmen, and I think they are very 
substantial businessmen, who say "I couldn't touch that with a 10- 
foot pole." 

But it is the type of question which my IMassachusetts friend has 
asked which will bring out the truth about this. It has been said in 
connection with that kind of question before now that we are trying 
to get along with our friends, but it has been noticeable to you gentle- 
men sitting at that desk. There has been no word of communication 
passed between us who are in favor of House Resolution 2341 and 
those public-health servants who are now attending the meeting. 
There is no intercourse whatever there. There is no exchange of 

There is much in the prepared statement I have given along with an 
equal number of copies of two standard newspapers from Massachu- 
setts, the Standard Times, of New Bedford, and the Springfield 
Union, of Springfield, Mass., which wull illustrate the contentiousness 
which now arises. 

The answer, sir, if I may speak through the Chair, is that I have 
been here 2 days. I would no more soak my body in a solution of 
sodium fluoride knowing my — I might be tricked into it— I am very 
sure that the people in some of these cities which are in the records, 
and I would describe them to you in detail if I could, I am sure many 


people have done so unknowingly, but getting into a tub of it know- 
ingly, no, sir. 

Mr. Heseltox. Have you asked that your full statement be made 
part of the record? 

Dr. ^Manning. I have the statements here. 

The Chairman. I want~to call attention to the fact that the custom 
of this conunittee permits the witness to have his statement in full 
recorded in the testimony, and that will be done in your case as well, 

(The statement is as follows :) 

[Copy No. 50] 

Statejient by Paui. Manning in Si ppokt of H. R. .1341, A Bnx To Protect the 
Public Health From the Dangers of Fluokination of Water 

Note.— Paul Manning, D. M. D. (Harvaid T'niversity. 1913 as of 1912) ; LL. B. 

(Noi'tbeastern University, 1929), is a practicinj^- dentist and a consultant in 
physiological chemistry. Fie holds certificates of registration in dentistry from 
Massachusetts (No. 32(>S of November 13, 1913) and California (No. 2758 of 
December 13, 1913). He became a life member of Valley District Dental Society 
and of Massachusetts Dental Society in 19.^A), and through them holds member- 
ship in the American Dental Association. 

Dr. Manning is the investigator and author of Electrobiolytic Theory of Dental 
Caries (published in Dental Cosmos (later merged with .T. A. D. A.) in LX, 1, 
pp. 2G-30. .January 1018: LXI, 1. pp. 21-27, January 1919; LXXII. 4, pp. 3.51-357, 
April 1930). The papers cited are believed to represent, as noted editorially in 
the New York Times. October 2. 1949, page 8E. colunni 6, how "the writer * * * 
a practicing dentist * * * in articles in Dental Cosmos, in 1918 and subsequently, 
originally revealed the basis upon which iluorine effect is olitained." 

In 1944 he began the study known as Research 44 : The Philosophy of Medical 
and Chemical Experimentation on Human Beings. In 1949 he organized and 
has since maintained the information-gathering alliance knov/n as Research 44 
Associates, a cooperating group of American citizens who as volunteers conduct 
independent, lawful inquiries at iirivate expense and who are agreed to continue 
to do so at least until the ordinary media of news interchange at the national 
level resume t!!os:> essential functions which now appear to be either neglected 
or willfully set aside. 

Preliminary statement 

This is a petition by Paul Manning, a practicing dentist and chemist engaged 
in studies on the philosophy of medicine, on behalf of his family, his patients, 
and himself, to the Congress, throuuh the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, to denounce and to' prohibit with aitpropriate penalties, those overt 
acts of administrators and other emiiloycc's of the puldic-healtb services com- 
prised under the fanciful and nondescriptive title of "Fluoridation of Public 
Water Supplies." 

Leave is asked also of the committee to represent such persons as. having seen 
(;r heard, and reflected upon, this statement, shall state to the conunittee that 
they regard themselves as the voluntary and unpaid associates of Research 44 
and request the conunittee to record them as being in support of this statement 
iiudof H. R. 2341. 

Tile question 

"Wide is the gate and broad the way" by which the (piestion posed liy H. R. 
2341 rode into the peace and (piiet of this Nation — whether Congress shall sup- 
port or prohiliit the exploitation, liy aliirmative overt acts of private doctors or 
civil servants, oflicinls oi- others, of experiments, tests or trials, of medication, 
treatment, "supplementation." "nutrition." or other feeding of uninformed, or 
of unconsenting. human subjects, or of total populations of water-supply areas 
with fluorine compounds, including sueh impurities as are always, and without 
exception, present in those compounds as used. 

The list of subordinate questions is very long, as we shall see. 

48301 — 54- 


The facts 

Outwardly, the prophets of coUectivist mass medication who initiate, conduct, 
and engage in massive medical experimental research and treatment on "the 
masses" of free American human beings, proposed, to quote them, a "boon for 
little children," which "could not be obtained in any other way." 

Inwardly, the inventors, planners, initiators, conductors and those who engaged 
in experiments, tests, trials, or treatment, or all of them, upon unwitting, un- 
consenting human subjects, for money, power to dominate their fellow men, 
or other undisclosed source of motivation, knew well, or could and therefore 
should have known, that both their major claims were false and could be shown 
to be false by clear mathematical proof. 

If the foundation claims of the ofBcial fluorine therapists are found to be false, 
as claimed herein, it will be clear that the overt acts of the responsible officials 
constitute trespasses ab initio upon grounds of authority and upon physical 
grounds where these officials had no legal right to enter, and this being so, all 
subsequent acts of theirs were and are illegal, and this is left to the committee to 
find upon receipt of proof, and to seek to provide protection for us as petitioned. 

If a sheriff in serving a writ commits an illegal act such as an unlawful 
entrance upon real property, e. g., and thereby invalidates all subsequent pro- 
ceedings in that action, by reason of his trespass ab initio, then surely no reason- 
able person will hold an unconsented entrance into the human body itself to 
be otherwise, nor an entry into a human body with agencies or instrumentalities 
which have been incompletely or fraudulently represented, or with agencies 
represented to be "harmless when taken as directed," or with agencies repre- 
sented to be harmful but only to a minor number of persons whose bodily privacy 
is invaded. 

The whole tenor and substance of what we offer as fact, as hearsay believed 
reliable and as opinion based upon study, will show that the arbitrary "selection" 
of human beings to serve as experimental subjects of fluorine research and treat- 
ment, with which we have been repeatedly threatened, under color of authority 
by USPHS employees, and by other public health servants who "follow the same 
line," for more than .5 years, is a trespass ab initio, for which purpose I will offer 
accounts of overt acts premeditated and carried out by public health employees 
at Charlotte, N. C, at Newburgh, N. Y., and elsewhere, and published by them- 
selves in proof. 

The first major claim of the fluorine therapists, by which term is meant, 
throughout, the protagonists of fluorine for all via the medium of the public water 
supply — that metallic salts of fluorine, such as fluoride of the metal sodium, 
taken several times daily in random 24-hour dosage are a "boon to little children," 
has been disproved by the fact that dentists themselves "chose to stay away from 
the show in overwhelming numbers." This fact was disclosed by a survey of 
homes of dentists over a nationwide extent, made by petitioner, and reported by 
him in part to his district dental society in November 1950, and upon finding that 
the members of the society were unwilling to hear the details and incuriovis as to 
how the facts were gathered or as to the extent of the survey, it was published 
in the Springfield Union, January 24, 1951. Leave to incoi-porate same by refer- 
ence is reauested, with one copy attached. 

The second major claim of the fluorine therapy's initiators, that "there is no 
other way" in which the patient (or the human subject as we may call him if it 
offends the finer sensibilities of the fluorine therapists to use the term "patient" 
and so disclose that they have been unable to "clear" a subterfuge term such as 
the word "supplementation" which they have been using as a noun to avoid terms 
.such as "medication," "chemicalization," and "bodily assault") can safely obtain 
(sodium) floride than by the method of intake with every drink of water is so 
absurd a falsehood as to preclude all sober discussion were it not that it is also 
so truly a Stalinesque-Hitlerian lie that it has fooled a large number of otherwise 
respectable i>eople. However, this falsehood has been exploded by the principal 
initiator himself, the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, 
upon the account by Hon. Alfred Lewis Miller in Congressional Record of 
March 24, 1952, page 2805, column 1, paragraph 4, lines 13 to 16 : 

"* * * j^n^ Y)Y Scheele of the United States Public Health Service, says he 
gives it to his children in tablet form." 

Petitioner holds a letter from a retired teacher in Pennsylvania, containing a 
contradiction of the quotation above attributed to the Surgeon General of USPHS, 
in answer to an inquiry of August 30, 1951, to USPHS, reported as follows : 

"8. Can sodium fluoride be secured by prescription from dentists or physicians 
for individual use?" 


Copy of a reply from DSPHS dated September 5, 1951, is as follows : 

•'8. There is no safe way whereby the sodium fluoride salt can be used by an 
individual regardless of the method of procurement." The copy says the letter 
was signed, "Sincerely yours, Thomas L. Hagan, Dental Director, Acting Chief, 
Division of Dental Public Health." There is no mention of the po.sition held, 
believed to be that of major general. 

Subsequent written communication from our informant shows informant was 
in fear of possible reprisals, for having made the inquiry ; this being the attitude 
of a large number of people in many parts of the Nation after they have received 
fi-om USPHS offices statemenfs of propaganda which directly deny the sense 
of their inquiries. 

While it is recognized that isolated instances of irrelevant response by Gov- 
ernment officials to pleas for protection and forbearance, with re:;ard to citizens' 
having to imdergo a known pointless course of medication internally and doctored 
bathing, might be due to lack of ordinary understanding, or to mistake, on the 
part of public health officials, the number and kind of returns received by in- 
quirers at USPHS doors is such as to establish the suspicion, in the minds of 
the receivers of that type of irrelevant reply, that USPHS servants are not so 
much interested in the general welfare as they are bent upon fastening their 
momentary medical enthusiasms upon their subjects come what may. 

That such an attitude on the part of civil servants has precipitated a state of 
grave internal dissension throughout the Nation, bordering upon outbreaks of 
open violence, has been our observation over many months past, and this dis- 
content is observed to be increasing, steadily, as events in San Diego and Boston, 
in Portland, Greg., and in Birmingham, and points between, will illustrate when 
they are investigated. 

It is axiomatic that the committee is interested in stopping practices which 
tend to disturb the faith and confidence of the American citizen in his form of 
government; however, it is easily ascertainable by any serious inquirer who 
is willing to take the time and trouble to sample sentiment widely throughout 
the Nation that the greatest force applied to our people to compel them to drink 
sodium fluoride solutions, to eat food prepared in those solutions, to undergo ab- 
sorption of sodium fluoride by dialysis in their baths, and to carry the so-called 
health measure to the ridiculous extreme of having to wash their underwear 
and their overalls in what they and we and certain moral food-products manu- 
facturers regard as a filthy mixture, and are certain comprises a dilution of a 
concentratable deadly mixture, is pi'oducing a disrespect for institutions which 
are inseparable from our Government and which reflect therefore upon our form 
of government whatever consequences of their overt acts the civil servants of 
"public health" induce. 

Whether we take the reply of the civil servant in USPHS as reported, as a 
denial that there is any way in which sodium fluoride can be safely used by the 
individual regardless of the method of procurement, which certainly would in- 
clude the fluorine-for-all method via the spigot, or whether we regard the re- 
ported reply in the light of Major General Hagan's complete record as a principal 
initiator of the fluorine exiierimental research and treatment, and consider that 
he did not mean what he said, but meant instead that he was determined to fol- 
low orders he had received to push the fluorine-for-all impressment program at 
all hazards — an adjustment of his reported rhetoric which we would be very 
glad to make in the purported copy of his letter — in either case his statement 
contradicts that of the Surgeon General of USPHS. 

The latter's reported admission that children in his home are fed sodium 
fluoride in tablet form daily could be true, it is entirely possible ; whereas the 
former's denial of all hitherto-recognized therapeutic means of administering 
sodium fluoride could not be true, as to which proof is offered ; nor could his 
reported statement after adjustment of the rhetoric, to make it mean what his 
acts say he meant in fact, be true. 

The time is ripe, or overripe, to call a halt to United States Public Health 
employees' insolences, false statements, illicit claims of right, seci'ecies, and dis- 
claims of personal liability for all the damage resulting from their having alone 
set in motion the wildly uncontrolled train of damaging overt acts to enforce 
fluorine therapy upon all living persons. 

The USPHS emi^loyees, major generals, brigadiers, colonels, lieutenant colonels, 
majors, captains, and small fry stand estopped, and all others stand estopped 
from claiming that sodium fluoride is incapaliie of being administered b^ 
graded dosage. It is believe to be a matter for the United States Attorney 
•General to investigate the repeated false assertions of those Government em- 


ployees and of all those persons whom they in the exercise of their conclusively 
presumed superior knowledge persuaded to parrot their censored falsification of 
information, to determine once and for all the corrupt motivation which actuates 
those falsifiers, and to take appropriate punitive steps, and I petition you to 
place the matter before the Attorney General for that purpose, now and before 
the people of this Nation are more greatly angered. 

If those well-established standards of law, of conduct and manner, accumulated 
by tradition and custom, and spontaneously occurring in new and succeeding 
generations of just and moral doctors, have remained relatively untested in law 
until recent years, it may be inferred respectably that this is because it was 
not until near the midcentury that doctors attained such weighty governmental 
positions as would, it now appears, provide the opportunity and create the 
temptation for the most highly placed of those state doctors to discard those 
tenets of moral legality which had theretofore prevailed, and to substitute for 
them a set of new principles based upon purely materialistic considerations, and 
excluding what had been considered, prior to that time, superior standards for 
appraisal of "public" health adventures (Double Standards in Medicine: Moral 
LegaUfy and Law Added to Technoloyij v. Moral Legality and Law Rejected). 

Following one set of obligatory studies of drugs and of experimental medical 
routines by which those drugs are proposed for commercial exploitation, we find 
men whose thought processes run in planes explored and inhabited (because he 
found them suitable for human tenancy) l)y the late Dr. Robert A. :dillikan, who 
the more he explored the science of physics the more he became assured of the 
worth of the person, in the light of the inevitablity of a Supreme Being. 

Under another arrangement of presumed essential studies, to explore "science" 
while at the same time suggesting no moral obligations to curb excess of "scien- 
tific" zeal, we find men with pretensions to power over the mental processes of 
their fellow men, like Trofim D. Lysenko of the Academy of Science in the Soviet 
Union, who hold that the state is not only the proprietor of the mind and body of 
each individual who composes the state, but also the manager of his current 
opinion. Such men do hesitate to alter the groundwork of their • scientific" 
proofs when the executive heads of state require certain conclusions inconsistent 
with (luantitative proof. 

It is common among such emotional and nonscientific "scientists" as I^ysenko, 
to accuse all who differ from their ofliicial conclusions, of "emotionalism," so 
that this routine Communist trick-technique provides a signal point for the 
differential diagnosis by which a Marxian dialectic materialist, especially one 
who has been deeply indoctrinated in Soviet activism, can be spotted from afar. 

May I recommend to the committee the use of this diagnostic sign, with 
assurances that whatever man decries the normal human emotions as unworthy 
or dishonorable, or who regards them as a signal for attack, is himself the 
enemy of humanity, for without emotions there would not be a single human 
being' alive on this planet today; again I say this line of diagnosis, with other 
tested means at our disposal will identify the enemies of the American state, 
whether in Government employ Or outside it. And the value of the diagnostic 
sign is more than doubled when in the course of uttering the cry "emotional" 
the subject or suspected individual is himself engaged in an emotional appeal, 
the (luality of which can be determined by logic. In case of uncertainty as to 
how this inf(n-mation applies, we have the names of proselytes of the fluorine 
experiment who have used this line of attack upon our peace and security 
repeatedly, and over the widest area, indicating that pattern which will become 
evident as the matter unfolds, of concerted action by more than two individuals 
to cause, if possible, the American freeman to distrust his own normal mentality 
and to place trust in planned propaganda which he at the outset regards a.s 
corrupt and against his interest, and to cause or to lead him to submit to medical 
experimental routines which he in the possession of his normal mental faculties,, 
when not brainwashed by mercenary propagandists would reject. 

Under the first set of conditions, where problems of moral legality and of law 
are held paramount in the public interest, we find men looking for the following 
satisfactions of minimal recpiirements for the commercial exploitation of drugs 
and treatment methods, in the order named, from 1 to 5. 

This order must be applied to every new medical routine applicable either to 
individuals or to the public en masse, at the beginning of the period of proof of 
a drug or medical routine, or at the time of its investigation to determine whether 
it is suitable, under the means and methods proposed, for use in human medicine : 

1. The ethical requirements: What are the facts of public morality V Which 
is to ask, what is the moral legality of the use of the drug or medical routine? 


2. Requirements of man-made law: What bearint;' have the statutes? As, 
Shall the statutes forbidding pollution of public water supiUies l)e vacated iu- 
fornially by administrative edicts'.' Wliat is the aiiplication of civil and criminal 
law, in the li.iiht of the moral law which underlies all formalized law? (Note: 
Here attempts to enter the dialectic materialist, l).v sidelong approach, having 
ignored all prior obstacles and safeguards.) 

3. The facts of chemistry. Stability, compatibility, uniformity, purity, action, 
etc. Unless this hurdle is passed without kicking it over, the medical racer is 
disqualified, as with prior hurdles. 

4. The medical facts. Nearly, but not quite the last hurdle, this includes 
si>ecial medical, su<-h as dental medical, facts. 

5. The economics of drug administration, including costs and management 
routines, comparatively with other methods, etc. Enthusiasts of one method 
Lave been heard to declare that other methods eitlier do not exist, or are defective, 
or are immeasurably nmre costl.v, or are unsafe, or may residt in lower sales for 
the enthusiasts : for example, all the foregoing examples of trade-jealousy, com- 
mon alike to the snake-medicine peddler and to the shills who threaten and 
abuse peaceable people in an effort to compel them to submit to the sodium 
fluoride iieauty treatment, have been exhibited by the professional promoters of 
forced fluorine for all, in the exploit called "fluoridation of public water supplies." 

Firxt ihing>t first in. mcdivlne 

It must l)e clear that the foregoing considerations, in their proper order, form 
a series of hurdles, each of which, within the rules against upsetting them, must 
be passed in turn, in order to obtain approval for any new drug or medical 

Would we say, for example, that merely because a drug or other medical routine 
is cheap, every person must submit to drinking it, eating it. and bathing in it — . 
where he will certainl.v absorb it by the dialysis which occurs in the operation 
of the physical principle of osmosis? No, but even before that question arises 
there are prior hurdles to be passed cleanly. 

Or would we say that because, being cheap, we can pass from the last 
hurdle, at the end of the path, in the wrong direction, toward the starting place, 
and require all persons, or a single individual, to submit to treatment with any 
drug or medical routine, "if it promises possible. prol)able, or sure results," 
merely because it is cheap or we "guarantee" its effectiveness upon some of our 
proposed subjects, or because we, as interested parties, claim we know of no 
harm which will ensue, or because it has been pronounced "i ood" or a "boon to 
mankind," or "the greatest health measure since I'asteur," by an executive of 

That is the position of the fluorine-for-all entlmsiasts, as a matter of record, 
not at all difficult to show. 

Intnidrrs: The didlectic materialists of niidcvHtunj "public" medicine 

At this point, as we retrace the littered jmth of broken hurdles, we see tearing 
into the course from the left side, between hurdles 2 and 3, a horde of dialectic 
materialists headed for hurdles 3, 4, and 5, who are apparently unmindful that 
the wind of their passage has knocked down hurdles 1 and 2, the existence of 
which these athletes have pretended to ignore. If anyone can find any remnant 
of mural philosophy, in the USPHS propaganda for forced fluorine feeding, for 
the objects of those civil servants' philanthropic dutch treats, a very large number 
of American freemen would like to have notice of it. 

What we, who wish to administer our own materia raedica and treatment, 
have not been able to make understood by polite requests to be let alone is the 
evident difference between orderly and decent competition for professional 
reputation which we practice and enjoy, and the forcible methods of the Gov- 
ernment-employed fluorine therapists. We would not for a moment consider 
carrying out an experimental routine, without first having given all the informa- 
tion we possess, and a description of the hazards reasonably to be expected, and 
having awaited respectfully the consent — or refusal — of the proposed experi- 
mental human subject. 

It does not seem to penetrate what appear to us to be shunt-wound intellects 
that this late entrance into the race, in disregard of the hurdles of established 
morality and law, has disqualified such competitors for public favor from orderly 
and decent competition forever thereafter. 

Our case is quite different from that of athletes, who when disqualified may 
he reinstated after a time of good behavior. In science it is quite otherwise. 


l)ec:uise science is not a mere jrame to ''get there first." but only a search for the 

In science one who has been found guilty of having but once knowingly taken 
"a part for the whole" (as in the assumption that the human body is nourished 
by impurities in drinking water) or of having wantonly violated any other 
axiom, or of having premeditated! y tampered with his proof-material, is forever 
ostracized from the company of scientists, he is forever regarded as being of un- 
clean mind, and thereafter he would not be given a .iob as elevator boy in any 
well-ordered laboratory, because the proprietors "would not care to have him 

In the massive fluorine experiments were "scientists" or at least men with pre- 
tensions to the fringe of science, on public pay, promoting a medical adventure 
about which they knew next lu nothing, and concerning which they showed the 
greatest indifference to learn, who not only violated every precept of the ma- 
terialistic sciences whose dialectics they professed in the most extravagant 
language to adore, but who required the human objects of their socio-political 
affections to believe, and to admit, that as privileged beings they, the employees 
of the public health services, were exempt from all requirements to act under 
the restraints of moral legality and law which are now and have been for many 
centuries imposed upon the acts of ordinary men. 

Nevertheless just and moral men everywhere, who initiate, conduct and engage 
in medical experimentation or who expect to be invited to submit to it, will have 
to examine all of these hurdles in order, attempting with full facts honestly as- 
sembled to take each in its turn, and recognizing that to kick over just one of 
them means disnualiflcation of the entire effort. 

Tliis much may be said for those contestants who seek to originate novel or 
original medical routines — and I know of no more hopeful excuse for them than 
that they were imbued with discipline of a very high order and of martial type — 
all may enter and try to win the medical races, and one may try as often as he 
likes, so long as he observes the rules and does no injury to others or to the rights 
of others. 

But all must begin, even great governments, at hurdle No. 1, the barrier of 
moral legality or ethics, which is the beginning now, and which always has been 
and always will be the beginning of acts of license, of permissive use, of acts 
for hire, and of acts of claimed authority, and if anybody who is entrenched in 
a castle which he considers impregnable against retaliatory attack is so minded 
to conduct forays upon the common heard "out in the field" from that vantage 
point, be sure that with time the stones of that castle will be taken apart one by 
(me, by men's hands if need be, and laid in disorder on the plain as a memorial 
that barbarism is less worthy of man than is his intelligent conduct. 

In the long run as well as in the immediate future, those medical enthusiasts 
who try to sneak in upon the course of respectable medical progress by the 
shinit-vvound route of the far left between obstacles Nos, 2 and 3, and thus 
avoid answering to questions of moral legality and law, will find "their public" 
unhappy about it. 

The moral and legal limits of medical research and treatm,ent 

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets. — Matthew 7 : 12. 

This is, or should be, the doctor's chart, compiled by the Best of Pilots. 

Taken as a basis for more than one professional society's official code of 
ethics, this good law is not an implied license, even though some men clearly con- 
sider it to be one, to enter into the body of another for any purpose, lacking the 
full informed consent of the proposed receiver of benefits. 

Only under a distortion of the principle of totality, which is to say the prin- 
ciple of totalitarianism, is there any license presumed to be implied to intermeddle 
in the life, or tlie body, or with the mental faculties of a human being, in order 
to effect a claimed "greatest good for the greatest number." Such an idea is 
not without promoters today ; some or all of the importers of strange European 
socio-political ideologies profess to know that the individual must be subjugated 
to the state in all his being, in order that we may have progress. 

To one experienced in observing the attempted swift encirclement of this 
Nation with forced fluorine experimental research and treatment, it is uncertain 
whether progress will come before bloodshed if the fluorine therapists continue 
to press with hard obstinacy for meek submission to the totalitarian medicine 
of fluoridation of public water supplies. 


Whether we look at the Golden Rule as hedonistic teaching, as some have 
claimed, and so force Thomas Jefferson, with his "pursuit of happiness" into 
hedonistic mold, seems of less imp<irtance in the present emergency than to 
consider the practical effects of dropping the Golden Rule from public-health 
equipment. The present situation is not without precedent. 

Recent effects of political control of medical research 

"Do you regard as criminal, experimentation on human beings without their 
consent V" 

This is the question asked by United States Prosecutor James McHaney of 
the leader of the medical profession under the National Socialist regime in the 
medical trials before Tribunal No. 1 at Niirnberg. The accused was on trial 
for crimes against humanity, as reported in Department of State i-ecords, and 
in Doctors of Infamy, a translation of Das Diktat der Menschenverachtung 
(Henry Schuman, Inc., New York, N. Y.), at pages 156-157. 

The answer of the accused began, "It depends * * *" and from that point 
in the trial his fate moved toward sentence of death by hanging. 

The prisoner was further asked, "What difference does it make what type of 
experiment it is, if the experimental subject has not consented to undergo 
the experiment?" 

"Defendaxt K B . You may well call it an experiment even 

when it is only a matter of testing some newly introduced drug. There is the 
conviction that it will be helpful, but the final knowledge is lacking. Even such 
a thing can be called an experiment." 

(The accused doctor referred to experiments on prisoners and mental patients, 
adding — ) 

"There are three aggravating factors with respect to the question of the 
criminal element in experiments : their involuntary character, the lack of neces- 
sity for them, and the danger involved. 

"Mr. McHaney. In other words, you find situations where it is possible, 
although the experimental subject does not volunteer, that nonetheless the experi- 
ment is permissible, both by way of law and morals? Is that right? 

"Defendant. Both may be possible ; yes. 

"Mr. McHaney. You are a doctor. I should think that you ai-e probably rather 
familiar with malpractice cases and statutes in Germany. Suppose, Herr 

B , you tried out a new drug on one of your patients in prewar Germany, 

without telling the subject about it or asking his consent in any way, and as 
a result the person were injured by this drug. Would you or would you not 
be subject to a charge of malpractice? 

"Defendant. I should certainly have risked such a charge. 

"Mr. McHaney. Well, then, I don't quite understand the situation in which 
you say it is permissible to do something to a person without his consent. 

"Defendant. That is why I made the distinction just now, because it is 
essentially a question of degree of dange' And what you have just said implies 
an aggravated danger, because lack <•♦ >tnsent is added. To my mind this 
would constitute double aggravation, and if the experiments should also be 
nonessential, then the ultimate degi-ee of aggravation would have been reached." 

(The court proceeded to alleviate the position into which tlie defendant had 
placed himself by his damaging admissions against interest. The prisoner was 
eventually hanged in accordance with sentence imposed by the fc>ur United States 
judges of the tribunal. Like sentence was also executed on a doctor who had 
formerly headed the German Red Cross, and on two other physicians, as well as 
a trio of their lackeys. ■> 

Let us see what was happening in the United States in the same years, toward 
the time when the physical and mental powers of the President were waning, 
when he no longer exercised a restraining hand on many of the vast govern- 
mental enterprises institutetl in his long term of influence. 

In Water & Sewage Works (155 East 44th Street, New York 17, N. Y.) 98:3, 
March 1951, pages 98-102, is the account "Water Fluoridation at Charlotte, 
N. C." which with other similar accounts illustrates the status of the fluorine 

"While April 1, 1949 was proclaimed as fluoridation day by the mayor, and a 
public ceremony was held at the filter plant, at which time the chemical feeder 
was started, the actual application of sodium fluoride was deliberately ^ delayed * 
until April 25. " " 

^ Admission that an act of deception was premeditated for April Fools' Day, and that 
this was deliberate, i. e.. for a purpose. 

* Representations made with unusual formality admitted falsely made. 

* Was this a planned and premeditated period? For what purpose? 


"Charlotte newspapers had .uiven ^ wide pulilirity to the literally'^ dozens of 
comphTints which had poured into health an'd water departments daily "^ concern- 
ing killed goldtish, horrible tastes, ruined photo.iirapher's iiluis, stained laundry, 
etc' These and many more" undesirables were attributed to fluoride." At the 
height of the reaction " the press suught to correct false impressions " by 
announcing ^" that up to that time no fluoride had been added to the water 1" 

"Then, without further announcement " fluoridation was immediately begun " 
and no further complaints were received " for about a week when suddenly 
the entire ice manufacturing industry reported a severe increase in cracking 
and shattering of manufactured ice." 

The remaining details can await formal investigation, no si,gn of whicli has 
"been forthcoming from those law-enforcement agencies charged with detection 
and punishment of fraud and violence, in the •"> years which have elapsed. 

The questions to be asked concerning the points of reporting marked with 
footnote numbers will occur to any lawyer with experience in criminal trials. 

In general, did the chemical rape of Charlotte on April Fools' Day, 1949, by 
coercion through ridicule, advance the cause of "science" or produce a net benefit 
for Charlotte's people, even upon the nonhedonistic basis of dialectic materialism 
or in the totality of arranged Marxian socio-political change or on any other basis 
known to you? 

From Holyoke (Mass.) Transcript-Telegram, March 1951: 

"Newburgh Study Shows Problems in Fluoridation." 

Following a list of "ridiculous" complaints, ascribed to Newburgh citizens, the 
prepared article says : 

"After letting these arguments build up for several months, health officials 
knocked them down with one devastating answer : 

"No fluorine has yet been introduced into the city's water supply. 

"As a result of this strategy, there was no adverse reaction when the injection 
of fluorine actually began on May 2, 194.5." 

From Easton (Pa.) Express of March 31, 1954, a Martinsburg, W. Va., dispatch 
by the Associated Press : 

"The city of Martinsburg took advantage of human nature when beginning 
flu,oridation of its water supply. To avoid complaints from persons imagining 
a new taste or odor in the water, officials withheld for 1 week the announcement 
that fluorides had been added. There were no complaints." 

(Do you regard as crinflnal experimentation on human beings without their 
consent? Would this have been an experiment in brain-washing opinions out of 
Martinsburg heads? Would this be an incitement to riot?) 

From Boston Post, April :}(). 1953 : 

"Two Cities Unknowingly Use Fluoridated Water." 

"Residents of Salem and Beverly have been drinking fluoridated water since 
December 7 without knowing it, it was disclosed yesterday. 

"Mayor Francis X. Collins, of Salem, him.self, did not know that the water 
he drank each day had been treated until February, 2 months after the experi- 
ment got u,nder way. However, he went along with the responsible officials in 
maintaining secrecy. 

"He declared yesterday that the information was withheld from the public 
to avoid 'crank protests' which might preclude a fair test of the public reaction 
to fluoridation." 

•* Does the reporter accuse the newspapers of collusion or conspiracy? 

^ What was the number? Are the original records available and if so produce them. 

« Assertion of "literally dozens daily." of complaints. Verify. 

' Name the others represented by "etc." 

^ What ones were "many more"? 

* Were they rightly or wrongly "attributed" in view of the physical effect on freezing 
water? How prove? And if no nroof. is ridicule reasonable and prudent? 

^'' How is a current reaction judged to be "at its height," otherwise than by planning 
an incitement. 

■11 What false impressions as to fraud: as to taste of water; as to "etc.": as to what 
was to cdme 

'"Who instigated the announcement and with what future overt acts in mind? 

^ Would this be a double deceit, a one-two punch, a putting of the common herd in 
Its place? 

'* Was withholding of "further announcement" part of the original plans? What do 
you consider the legal liability for having set up an open ceremony for the public, with the 
premeditated intention to deceive them on April Fools' Day, and then committing this 
secret act ? 

'^ Do you suppose that people once fooled, humiliated in public, derided and embarrassed, 
would come to you again in hope of humane consideration? 


(Witch City mass medication fooled the mayor, too? Why did he choose to 
condone that series of overt acts? Are important numbers of Witch City people 
"cranks," in the mayor's estimation? How far does "fairness" extend? 

"And what you have just said implies an aggravated danger, because lack of 
consent is added * * * quoted above from record of the medical trials. ) 

Add the large number of similar accounts of secret induction of human beings, 
by arbitrary '•selection," to serve as subjects for medical experimentation and 
treatment, as at Stevens Point, Wis., at Loujsville, Ky., Rhinelander, Wis. 
(6 months of secrecy), Marshfield. Wis. (80 days of secrecy), and many others, 
for an explanation of why the official German observer at the medical trials 
of Nuremberg entitled his account "Das Diktat der Menschenverachtung," or 
The Dictatorship of Contempt for Humanity. 

From the record of the medical trials of Nuremberg (see Doctors of Infamy, 
p. 17), quoting a letter from Heinrich Himmler to his "Dear Comrade Milch" in 
NoA-ember 1942 : 

"Let's not worry about the difficulties. It will take at least another 10 years 
before we have rooted out this narrowminded approach from our people." 
(Himmler is referring to freezing exi)eriments carried out on human beings — ■ 
without consent — ^"in the interests of the state," as well as to euthanasia experi- 
ments to weed out those who for reasons of infirmity or age could no longer 
replace the value of what they ate.) 

From Dental Survey, published at Essex Building. Minneapolis 3, Minn., 28 : 1 
(January) 1952 : page 27. "Fluoridation Slow." 

"Dr. Knutson is irritated with the delay, but not discouraged. Regarding his 
own estimate of 150 years to complete the job nationally, he says, 'Of course it 
won't take that long. We won't let it take that long. I think it can and should 
be finished within 5 years'." 

(Both timetables were upset: the Nazi timetable with a comparatively liberal 
allowance for "driving out the narrowminded approach" and the T'liited States 
Public Health major generals' timetable "earmarking" one-half that time for a 
vastly more grandiose conquest of the minds and bodies of free men.) 

Matters for the committee to resolve, in the same way and u\K>n the same fac- 
tual basis that large numbers of our people are resolving them in defense against 
unprovoked and pointless assaults upon their right to privacy of their own bodies 
and to the management and superintendence thereof, said assaults being prose- 
cuted under the guise of claimed "health" measures called by the willfully and 
admittedly false and fraudulent title of "fluoridation of piiblic water supplies." 
(See p. 41; par. 4, etc.. Proceedings of Fourth Annual Conference, said to have 
been a secret document of the United States Government's employes, an account 
of a conspiracy to exercise dominion over the minds and bodies of free Amer- 
icans. ) 

As far as the prescribed time for preparation of this statement allows, it is my 
intention to provide the committee with a list of matters which seem to me to 
require deep and thorough investigation, constituting "a long train of abuses and 
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, which evince a design to reduce 
us under absolute despotism," and at variance with the purposes for which the 
United States Public Health Service was authorized in 1912 with powers granted 
to "study and investigate the diseases of man and the conditions influencing the 
propagation and spread thereof." 

(Definition : "They," "them," and "their" — except where otherwise indicated — 
shall relate to these antecedents; the instigators, initiators, and conductors of 
massive fluorine experiments, tests, or trials upon arbitrarily "selected" unin- 
formed or uncon.senting human subjects and like insolvent overt acts of the 
"public health" regime. ) 

1. Whether they know that no chemical element can be utilized in human 
nutrition without first having been passed through the plant barrier and whether 
all animal life is walled off, and forever prevented, from obtaining nourishment 
by eating clods of earth, or other inorganic elements or compounds which have 
not first been passed through the barrier of plant life, and by photosynthe.sis 
converted to edible and nutritious substances. 

2. Whether this has been published to thein and to others by Manning and 
others, repeatedly, and whether they paid proper attention to rhe iiisti-uction 
and acted accordingly to forbear their misreiiresentations concerning fluorine as- 
a proper nutrient, or whether they did not in fact invent new theories of nutri- 
tion and, or, proceed with increased zeal to force the swift accomplishment of 
their plans? 


3. Whether the foregoing informatoiu is uot elementary and easily proved 
without any special equipment ; whether Manning offered to direct such an 
experiment — the subjects to be those informed and consenting oflacials who insist 
that metallic salts of fluorine are proper additives to the human body, and the 
subsistence of those subjects to be the entire range of chemical elements, in the 
form of compounds of those elements, of U. S. P. grade of purity, plus ordinary 
pure water, but without any of the produce of the soil or of seed production. 
Whether the invitation was refused? or disregarded'? or whether they would 
like to comment publicly with opportunity for confrontation and rebuttal? 

4. Whether the mere absorption and incorporation by plants of mineriU ele- 
ments is any guaranty that the elements so combined will not be poisonous or 
deleterious, as, e. g., arsenic, lead, selenium, fluorine, and other plant-absorption, 
the proper replies being well-lcnown to intelligent or charihuen and gardeners? 

5. WTiether any known chemical substance is incapable of measured dosage, 
and whether it has been the universal practice among doctors to adjust the 
dosage of every medicine to the age ; weight ; lieigth ; sex ; condition of health 
or disease; condition of growth: conflict with otlier medication and with food 
and drink ; cyclic function in females and liability to wound-hazard with refer- 
ence to clotting capacity of the blood: climate; hyther or the comparative 
values of temperature and humidity as affecting metabolic lates ; avoidance of 
known medicons or substances totaly worthless from a standpoint of medicine, 
especially those having extensive criminal records as agents for homicide includ- 
ing suicide; allergy or the departure from normal in reaction to a drug: a true, 
safe, effective and ready antidote operable under a narrow range of tolerance 
and without undesirable side efiects ; a definite knowledge of minimum lethal 
dose per unit of body weight within a respectably narrow range of tolerance 
upward and downward : sufficient knowledge of the natural history of the 
disease being treated or prevented to enable the doctor to withdraw the medica- 
tion when the object has ben reached and before unneeded results or toxicosis 
occur, and other considerations? 

6. Whether they (the initiators, etc., of the fluorine experiment) observed any 
of those traditional and proved requirements, and so acted, or whether they 
disregarded some or all of them, and why? 

7. Whether they published the statement that "5 grams has caused death," 
by way of subterfuge, or otherwise, to satisfy dentists and others who relied on 
them as Government servants? Whether they knew or could have known that 
5 grams might liill a large number of people, or possibly kill 15 adult humanS 
or had seen records of such conjecture in standard medical journals? 

8. Whether they did not in fact word the statement (7) ambiguously ,in 
loose terms never used by men of science, in order to confuse and to make more 
difficult the formation of possibly adverse opinion of dentists and others? 
Whether they intended to create the impression among dentists that "sodium 
fluoride is safe," and did so publish, and/or cause to be published and whether 
sodium fluoride is ever safe for human consumption or even for commercial 
handling? Whether it is a known fact that all of the handlers of fluorine com- 
pounds in water department sheds are and have been absorbing more fluorine 
than they can eliminate since the start of the experiments? 

9. Whether numerous collapses, otherwise unexplained, having been occurring 
among child patients treated by dentists with topical sodium fluoride applica- 
tions, and whether the USPHS employees have investigated those collapses, 
in and out of dentists' ofiices, as recommended by Manning in 1951? Whether 
they did or did not advise a Springfield dentist who had reported such a collapse 
to Manning and who had agreed that a central clearinghouse for such informa- 
tion was necessary to avoid disaster, to break his promise, to disregard a chart 
form devised by Manning for that tentative purpose of collating such informa- 
tion in the public interest; and did not the dentist obey their injunction to 
remain silent and not to act, confer, or cooperate ; and did not Manning thereafter 
cease to try to deal with the authors of what he regarded as a leglect of proper 
professional conduct? 

10. Do they not know that sodium fluoride 2-percent solutions and stronger 
are used by dentists in spray bottles, for direct or topical applications to children's 
teeth, in reliance on public health employees' statements, and that in a 4-ounce 
spray bottle there are, at 2-percent concentration, 36 grains, or 2,332 milligrams, 
of NaF? Whether Gettler & Ellerbrook, in A. J. M. Sc, 197: 625 (May), 1939, 
recorded the indication that death of an adult human might result from the 
absorption of as little as 105 milligrans of fluorine? 


' Whether it is proper to lead dentists to the belief that sodium fluoride is 
safe when reports that their 4-ounce bottles may contain enough fluorine to 
kill several adults have never been disproved on any basis? 

11. Whether there have been deatlis by suicide or other homicide from fluorine 
compounds, as a direct I'esult of the needless, pointless, unjustifled publication 
by officials of false information that fluorides are safe? How many? Where? 

12. Whether their fluorine-for-all propaganda constitutes an open invitation 
to s(mie psychotic individuals to commit criminal mischief? 

lo. AA'hether there had been since about 1928 or 1929 a gentlemen's agreement 
in our national news press that poisons when used for criminal mischief, such 
as suicide and murder, would not be named in newspapers and periodicals, and 
whether the press had not lived up to that agreement nearly 100 percent until 
the advent of USPHS nationwide propagandization for mass medication with 

Whether they in fact did not rely upon that known censorship, admitted by 
all to be in the public interest, as a principal point of control of the press and 
the jiress wire services, and whether they did not regard and try to use such 
cooperation in censoring the miserable facts of all fluorine compounds' toxicity 
as vital to the swift envelopment of the electorate in their scheme? 

14. Whetlier when they had received timely warning of impending danger to 
themselves as well as to the entire American public, they heeded that warning 
as prudent men or whether they did not in fact retaliate with every means 
within their power and with some outside the scope of their lawful authority, 
such as incitement of rumors and the condonement of such rumors n^; accepted 
public-health methodology, to the effect that their opposers in the raulis of the 
professions and elsewhere were actuated by ulterior motives, such as inordinate 
desire for iniblic notice and a<-claim, for money, for religious beliefs which the 
context of those planted rumors showed the public officials held in greatest 
disrespect? And had they not shortly before criticized publicly those professional 
men who sought to warn them of the impropriety of their acts, by ])ublishing 
critical analyses of those acts, under modest pseudonyms so as to avoid public- 
preferment, for having written for publication under pen names? 

Whether public health servants must always "tal^e their half out of tlie middle," 
or whether there; is any way to satisfy their greed for power to dominate their 
fellow men? 

Whether their refusal to accept either of two diametrically opposed positions, 
as just described, both of which were designed to placate, but only enraged 
them with their continued rude disregard for polite requests to let our patients 
and ourselves alone and to leave us out of the orbit of their power, does not in 
fact indicate that their desire is to incite and provoke open violence? 

Whether the every word and act of fluorine activists in a very lart^e number 
of cities does not suggest to the people they have put in fear, and against whom 
they claim they have the present ability to carry out the acts they threaten and 
which in many case's they have carried out, that the only possible working result 
of those acts and words is a putting in fear and an incitement to breach of the 

15. Whether they instigated, or condoned and accepted as reputable "public 
health promotion," for which billions have been appropriated by recent Con- 
gresses, the use of libelous terms, such as the "crackpot" publications of 
Gerald Judy Cox, Ph. D., regarded liy many, and possibly by himself as a 
principal initiator, and a one-time recipient of the bounty of Mellon fellow- 
ships, in Pennsylvania Dental Journal, 17: 279 (Dec.) 1950, republished inter- 
nationally by ADA in February 1951 and thereafter, and from there applied 
orally in slanders and in uncounted printed libels over the widest areas, to 
stifle and coerce into silence all reasoned opposition? 

Repeat foregoing examination in the case of Shirley Dwyer, D. D. S., a party 
to "Fourth Ajinual Conference." in re Manchester (N. H.) Union-Leader, 
June 13, 1951. This public health officer refers to the parents and relatives 
of the tender oiijects of his solicitude — when they disagree with him — as "the 
group suffering from starvation of mental ability (that) always feels that the 
other has something they envy and seek to detsroy. * * *" 

Repeat examination as to the editor of JADA, the Journal of the American 
Dental Association : whether he published the statement in the .iournal in their 
defense, and whether the libel was republished in a newspaper charging that 
the people themselves were "insane," and whether either the editor of JADA 
or USPHS civil servants made any effort to deny or to mitigate tbi.> or other 


similar continuing libels, evidenced in publications over the length and breadth 
of the Nation? 

Whether it is for such purposes the Congress grants $289 million for "Pro- 
motion of public health," and what relation have libel, slander, and vituperation 
to our health, in the estimation of the committee? 

10. Whether they have seen and studied the published figures of Manning, 
showing that all the children of the United States under sane regimen of graded 
dosage could not possibly consume more than 100 pounds daily of fluorine as 
sodium fluoride, even if they were given measured doses 10 times the amount of 
tentative daily M. A. D. R. dosage for adults of any of the other "trace minerals"? 
( See the Springfield Union, December 24, 1953, minority report of Massachusetts 
Study Commission and two bills designed to define "fluoridation" as a criminal 
act; reprint attached.) 

17. Whether they have noted, studied, accepted, refused, or replied to Man- 
ning's oiler to supply the raw material for 1 year's fluorine medication or "feed- 
ing" for all children in the United States, as published in Mount Dora (Fla.) 
Topic, July 24, 1952, and hereby withdrawn with an ofCer to renegotiate the 
original offer directly with United States Public Health Service. 

IS. Whether they have noted, studied, accepted as true, or rejected Man- 
ning's appraisal of their "efficiency," based upon figures of their own "authori- 
ties." Armstrong and Brekhus (in Journal, Dent. Res. 17 ; p. 27, 1938) . The differ- 
ence in fluorine content reported therein to be 09 parts per million in the enamel 
of "poor" teeth, and 111 parts per million in enamel of "good" teeth or a net 
"deficiency" of 42 parts per million proposed to be added to presently poor 
teeth to obtain good teeth, the difference to be made up by fluoridation of 
public water supplies. 

(Whether any explanation by United States Public Healtli Service is due, 
concerning what their crystal ball reveals will happen to the bodies of "the 
percentage of children" who are statictically recognized as destined for good 
teeth, and for whom, by their own hypothesis, any medication is overmedication.) 

(Note : In Granite State News, XC, 9 (March 2) 1951, Prof. R. S. Harris noted 
that "spectrographic analyses have shown that many healthy teeth do not con- 
tain fluorine," which refutes the entire hypothesis of fluoridation since if one 
perfect tooth can be formed without any fluorine whatever, it follows that all 
teeth can be perfect without fluorine.) 

The basis for computing the actual quantity of fluorine, "laid down and in- 
stalled on the job," and the proper cost of same, f. o. b. the chemical warehouse, 
using the figures of Armstrong and Brekhus, was pviblished l)y Manning in Holy- 
oke (Mass.) Trau-cript-Telegram, February 28, 1951, page 20, showing that in 1 
year all of the cl ihlren of America, even granting that all had poor teeth, which 
"is by no means true, although the United States Public Health Service work on 
human experimental sulijects assumes it could utilize less than one-half pound 
of elemental fluorine. 

Basic facts needed for computation are : 
Population of the United States, about 160 million. 

Children of "fluoriuatable age" not over 25 ijercent of above, or 40 million. 
Weight of enamel of adult teeth, plus 4 grams. 
Added fluorine proposed, 42 parts per million. 

Florine in sodimn fluoride, nineteen-forty-seconds of gross weight of NaF. 
Grams in avoirdupois pound, 453.592. 
Market price of NaF. 

19. Whether in fact, with the utter loss of all controls such as might have 
served for comparative findings had they been properly managed, the committee 
will decide, or leave to the Attorney General, the degree of culpability of the 
principals involved in the disgraceful episode recounted in the infantile language 
of excuse and avoidance, at page 1500, paragraph 7, of part 3 of the select com- 
mittee hearings (chemicals in food products, etc., 82d Cong., 2d sess.). 

AVhether it was in fact true, as alleged under oath, that "They felt they wanted 
the water fluoridated, so it is being fluoridated, and so we have lost it as a con- 
trol. But we certainly want to go back each year and do reexaminations." 

20. Who were the "they" who "felt" tliey wanted "tiudridatidn"? Who so 
gentle in USPHS as to give in so readily to what "they felt"? Who will do the 
reexaminations at Muskegon — and why? Surely not for the purpose of quantita- 
tive measurements ; those are now rendered impossible throughout America, as 
is well known to the social anthropologists ; then for what reason other than 
dollars and domination? 


21. Whether civil servants regard themselves as immune to personal liability 
merely because they hold Government jobs? 

Whether civil servants regard the billions of dollars, billions of v^^indmill words, 
billions of lost labor-hours, invested by all parties in interest, as an achievement, 
or as unconscionable waste? 

22. Whether the intrusion of preventive medicine into water supply manage- 
ment with 50,000 tons of sodium fluoride annually was a wise and prudent move 
or a dangerous precedent? 

23. Whether fluoridation is not in fact a three-pronged attack, gleefully watched 
by the enemies of America : 

1. To secure a legal precedent once more which was lost some centuries ago, 
with prescriptive rights in and to the body of the citizen, 

2. To obtain the therapeutic and toxicological effects, be they good or bad, of 
the drug of choice, and 

3. To divide the unity of our people in the most critical hour of our history? 

24. Whether, even though the first two objects were halted, by passage of 
H. R. 2341, the third prong of the fluorine assault has not struck deeply — -whether 
this was foreseen at any stage of the attempt and by whom it was foreseen — and 
with what proper action by him or them, if any? 

25. Whether there is one single subversive or enemy agent or indoctrinated 
fellow traveler who is not head over heels "in favor of fluoridation," as the ex- 
pression goes? Whether this is because he has been ordered to endorse the 

26. Whether the storage of multiton lots of compounds of fluorine, the essen- 
tial ingredient of the nerve gas which all nations fear but which several are 
stockpiling, in ill-defended areas adjacent to main aqueducts of great water 
supplies, is wise and prudent, or foolhardy and criminal to a degree never before 
attained in history? 

Respectfully submitted. 

Paul Manning, D. M. D. 


The emergency character of the national situation fomented l)y illegal claims 
of right on the part of public health employees to select by purely arbitrary 
means large numbers of human experimental subjects for fluorine research 
and treatment raises severe problems of how the public interest may be re- 
instituted after the period of neglect and active dissipation which that inter- 
est sufl'ered while the great conquest was in its upsurge. 

It is now well established by ^^■hat has been said here and elsewhere that 
massive fluorine therapy, as comprised in the series of representations and 
overt acts called by the daft and wilfully fraudulent title of "fluoridation of 
public water supplies," has nothing whatever to do with the practice of medi- 
cine or any of its specialists, either of the private practice variety or public- 
health blend, nor has it anything to do with any economical administration 
of totalitarian medicine, the last having been shown by the series of simple 
arithmetical examples given above and published elsewhere, and put in the 
hands of the committee, by Manning. 

When it was found that the acts, as based upon claims of right, comprising 
the astonishing title of fluoridation did not conform to any of the accepted 
medical practices then existing or to any of the minimum standards of law, 
while it did contain all the elements of assault and battery, it was clear the 
term required a formal definition. 

A definition was first evolved by Manning out of the facts of massive fluorine 
therapy as the practice was introduced l)y employees of USPHS : 

"Fluoridation means the experimental mass medication of total populations 
by the impregnation of entire water supplies of whole communities with metallic 
compounds of fluorine incapable of being assimilated as food, under conditions 
of duress, without cessation, or reasonable chance of escape." 

When first published in the Springfield Union of March 16, 1951. the word 
"experimental" was intentionally omitted from the definition— although it was 
clearly required on the facts — to invite the ofiicers of those professions most 
deeply involved in sanctioning and promoting the arbitrary selection of vast 
numbers of human beings for medical research and treatment with insidiously 
poisonous fluorine compounds to reconsider, and then repudiate and denounce 
their unwarranted aggression against the patients and family of the petitioner. 


at such time as their moral reawakening might indicate to them the mistalie 
they had made (as I then supposed it to be; however, at about that time it 
became clear tluit this was no idle mistake on the part of that hard core of 
fluorine therapists whose premeditated designs were clearly subject to review 
by the wealth of legal talent which we knew the Government bureaus involved 
in the massive fluorine impressment possessed). 

It is now history that those professional groups, as groups alone, and always 
with notable exceptions among the individuals composing them, constantly and 
with hard obstinacy in the face of repeated warnings diligently pursued, re- 
fused to recognise that any consideration outside the pale of dialectic mate- 
rialism held an\ regulatory value upon their conduct. If it was the design of 
such a course of group conduct to "lead us to the very death of brotherly love," 
through "all the gruff commands, all the unconditional obedience, all the chilly 
ways of bureaucracy," as the parallel induction of unwilling and unwitting 
human subjects in concentration camps of Nazi Germany was seen to have 
done (see appendix: Doctors of Infamy, v. s., p. 165) the reason for that sad 
state may be read in the definition given above. 

When the fluorine-for-all madness was first set in motion by its initiators of 
the USPHS, the dental profession, for example, held a position in the public 
regard, consisting of respect and good will in a degree never approached in 
the history of the world, except, perhaps, in the case of certain members of 
the clergy and isolated cases of royalty. 

Consider the fact that on the mere dictum of dentists who mouthed the state- 
ments of their politically chosen oflScers to the effect that this "was a good thing 
and ought to be tried," or that it was "a conclusively proven boon to little 
children" and therefore must be "inflicted as a benefit," large numbers of group- 
ers — heads of organizations relied upon by all propagandists of group control — 
reiterated their statements without so much as lifting a finger to verify the worth 
of the claims. No other profession can make that claim. But the respect and 
good will wliich the elected and appointed leaders of dental and medical groups 
held in trust at the onset of the fluorine impressment has undergone a change; 
in some places it is entirely dissipated, as to the dental and medical groups, 
although, again, the individuals who by their regular and upright conduct have 
avoided the blame which attached to their less prudent brethren are still re- 
spected as individuals, though the part of their prestige which was appurtenant 
to the group is gone for the time being and the hour of its return is unpredictable. 

That respect and good will which the dental profession possessed in 1949 was 
not the product of the present generation of dentists, nor wholly of their imme- 
diate predecessors, but was a fund built up by tempei'ate and prudent conduct 
over a period of more than 100 years. It was a fund held in trust, bequeathed 
by all honest men in the modest accumulations of their lifetimes of forthright 
and considerate dealing. It has been squandered by spendthrifts who did not 
even receive one jot of benefit from their spendthrift acts ; like worthless stock 
certificates, the swindle sheets of fluorine promotion gave not even the pleasure 
of a justifiable spree to those who in reckless extravagance spent what was not 
theirs to spend. 

All the foregoing applies only to the artifice called by skilled propagandists 
of the United States Public Health Service group action and opinion control in 
groups, and not at all to the very many members of my profession who without 
fear of the cost to themselves have openly or covertly opposed as far as lay 
within their power the designs of the young Soviets of public health. The 
number of these true gentlemen is so large that a list of their names is impossible 
here ; it is far more appropriate to inform the committee that under proper privi- 
lege these men can be introduced to the committee's investigators, upon proper 
assurances that in so doing the opposers of the fluorine swindle will not be .sub- 
jected to the kind of reprisal which is a matter of public record in more than one 
city, at the hands of public-health employees or their cohorts who happen to 
occupy power positions, for merely having attempted (in some cases unsuccess- 
fully) to protect their patients against chemical rape; and if any of these kind 
friends choose to endorse this statement or any part of it and exclude the rest, 
may they be i)ermitted to do so by the committee. 

Last of all, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee, if possible, the 
small part which my personal experience has brought to bear upon the problem 
of forceful attempts to induct peaceable people into medical experimentation 
and treatment for which they have antipathy. It began as a strictly scientific 
study wliHii in the years about 191.5 to 1922 and thereafter I investigated the 


electrochemistry of the human mouth. The results were published as listed on 
the cover page of this statement and possibly in a few other journals, including 
the Pacific Dental Gazette. 

Fluorine is the most extremely electronegative of all the elements. This means 
that in a circuit of electrical tlow fluorine will be cathodal toward any other 
element. That means that fluorine can never be anodal toward any other element. 

In brief, fluorine when immersed in an electrolyte, like the human saliva, will 
always be in a potential position to receive ions of other elements, but will not 
!Sive up ions (permanently at least) to other elements. The cathode in an elec- 
trical circuit is always on the receiving end — that is, negative, and the position 
toward which ions flow — -while the anode is on the griving-up end, or positive end, 
and undergoes los.s of ions, or erosion. This is common knowledge among electro- 
platers, such as electrotypers. 

The human saliva, being a workable electrolytic solution, supports electrolysis, 
electrophoresis, and all manifestations of electrical action. In one side of the 
electrolytic process going on in the mouth, slowly but fairly constantly under some 
conditions, ions transferi'ed out of the solution of solids called the saliva are often, 
though not always, due to modifying conditions, laid down upon looth surfaces by 
electrodeposition, in just the same way that stain is deposited out of solution in 
a coffeepot, requiring regular scouring to keep it free of the deposits. AVhen this 
occurs it is called salivary calculus or tartar. 

Tartar is electrically deposited on some teeth, and on some more than on others. 
The reverse process is present at times, in which the teeth clearly take on an 
anodal character, losing mass and leading to the condition described as a disease 
condition called dental caries or tooth decay. The process is measurable. The 
process can be set up artificially, not only by a dentist but by anybody who 
chooses, of his own free will, to place a pure silver band about the neck of a 
tooth and leave it there. When such a silver band is allowed to remain about a 
tooth for a period of but a few weeks, an artificially produced lesion of dental 
caries occurs beneath and around the silver band, thus one of the basic require- 
ments of proof of responsibility of a causative agency for a disease, in this case 
the disease of dental caries, is satisfied. 

This is not a new observation, the recorded source of it is given in the papers 
cited, on Electrobiolytic Theory of Dental Caries, which indicate not only the 
actual physical means by which mass is reduced in caries but also show the 
reverse process of tartar deposition to be due to the operation of the same physical 

If the process of electrobiolysis observed in dental caries could be reversed, by 
chemical or drug or other devices, Manning reasoned, it might be possible to stop 
dental caries or avert it. The electrochemistry of the mouth having been verified 
to the investigator's satisfaction, a search for a reagent which would combine 
readily with tooth structure was begun, and it was no great time until fluorine 
was found to be both readily combinable out of one of its compounds with tooth 
structure, either the enamel or the inner structures of the tooth, and also to 
afford that altered tooth substance a cathodal quality, from which, in both 
theory and practice, loss of mass, as in dental caries, was not only impracticable 
but did not occur. 

But it was also found that sodium fluoride when applied to either the cementum 
(root covering) or dentin (inner portion of tooth) rapidly and thoroughly and 
permanently deprived the tooth of all sensory nerve response. This presented a 
grave hazard, and immediately a promising discovery was rendered so dangerons 
as to warrant its suppression. But when events are in the making such matters 
are given up reluctantly, if at all, and as a consequence Manning started with 
animal experimentation to determine, against a day when the serious nerve- 
poisoning properties of sodium fluoride might possibly be subdued or circum- 
vented, two conditions precedent to the commercial exploitation of any drug 
which lay upon the hand of the medical innovator the heaviest of obligations. 

Those two conditions precedent to commercial exploitation of all drugs are : 

1. The determination of a minimum lethal dose of tlie drug, with reference to 
units of body weight, to be ascertained over a wide range of experiments on 
warm-blooded animals of widest range of body weight, variety, and species, 
arranged in series. 

Without such knowledge no drug should be introduced into commerce; the 
USPHS employees know it. you know it at least instinctively, and I know it and 
Jibide by it. 


Such a value is indeterminable for any fluorine compound investigated, due 
to the capricous nature, or rather the viperish nature of the element, fluorine, 
itself. You do not know the minimum lethal dose of any fluorine compound an 
against unit body weights in humans, I do not know it although I have at great 
labor tried to find out and that now long ago but still reliable, and the employees 
of the United States Public Health Service do not know it although they made 
wild statements that "five grams has caused death." No doubt they are right, 
but that recklessly misleading statement might result in a large number of deaths 
and I am not at all sure that it has not done so. 

2. The minimum lethal dose knowledge must be supplemented by knowledge 
of a reasonably safe and effective antidote, calculated likewise against body 
weight, having a minimum of undesirable side effects and no lasting bad effect 
or retention, and capable of ready administration. 

Animal experiments show this condition precedent is a vain hope, the lan- 
guage of the standard reference book, Merck's Manual, concerning sodium-fluoride 
poisoning, when compared with the section on lead, for instance, or when taken 
by itself, is testimony as to what happens to sodium fluoride poisoning victims. 

Seeing that the way to proper introduction of sodium fluoride into dental 
medicine for the purpose of cathodization of human tooth surfaces was barred, I 
turned away from the needless and pointless destruction of animals and devoted 
myself to maintenance of proper diet so far as lay within my powers of persua- 
sion, for the beneflt <^)f my patients. I regret to say that my success in in- 
fluencing any important number of people toward use of whole grains, sugars, 
and sirups which have been altered chemically to a minimum, and fruits and 
vegetables has been negligible, not at all like that of Dr. Fred Miller, of Altoona, 
Pa., whose success is a matter of record. Dr. Miller is more able than I am and 
more persuasive, and as a master dentist he is to be complimented for his state- 
ment to the Select Committee on Chemicals in Food, and there are other Dr. 
Millers in this country, but fur my part I have influenced fewer people in correct 
food selection and dietary management than any one of a dozen well-known radio 
hucksters have in 1.5 minutes. I make this tremendously serious admission 
against selfish interest only because somewhere there must be a true record of 
our times, and because we are not getting that record in the dental journals 
today. In a Nation that almost universally cultivates a silly grin, displaying all 
teeth away back to the molars, whenever a camera comes in view, the fabulists 
and calamity howlers who create a din over the poorest teeth in the Nation, in 
a hundred cities simultaneously, are checked by the pictures tliemselves. We 
can get rid of dental caries by ruling out vitiated flours and sugars ; I have 
proved it in my own case, and in a few others, and every dentist in this country 
worth his salt knows it and believes it thoroughly. The point is so obvious that 
I mention it here only to comply with the requirements of the presentation. 

There are many other matters of importance which cannot be dealt with in this 
statement due to lack of time alone, but there is one which should be brought to 
the attention of every legislative body immediately. This is the matter of 
remedy. It is presumed that where one finds fault with the existing state of 
things, the faultfinder should propose a reasonable and legal and workable 

There is not the slightest question that public health officials have gone too 
far in this matter of forced fluorine therapy. How much too far they have gone 
is a matter for our courts to decide. They have gone too far in other lines also, 
but it is not only the which have been practiced but the entire setup of 
means and methods which requires now a thoroughgoing investigation. 

It has been the experience of men — and children — that they are happiest when 
working under minimum restraints, such as the restraints of' law which are cer- 
tainly minimum, for these legal restrictions are the lowest form of restrictions, 
the mere infringement of which results in penalties, whereas the infringement 
of the higher restrictions, such as the nobler moral restrictions placed by every 
man of character upon his acts, both the unseen and the seen — and nobody is in 
a better position to observe this pcnnt than a practicing dentist — is not accom- 
panied by any penalty at law. 

Reasonable minimum standards placed upon the principal representatives of 
branches of science also tend to build and preserve that branch of science where 
they are observed, by curbing excesses of modes and manners. 

Gross failures to observe comm(m medical manners by doctors in Massachu- 
setts, the invention of deceitful subterfuges such as the insincere political fare- 
thee-well called home rule publicly and — among the political initiate— a gim- 


iiiick which I believe is sutter languasie for brass knuckles, led to the filing of 
a medical bill of rights for the 1954 session of the Massachusetts General Court. 
Just as we have uniform sales acts, uniform negotiable instruments acts, and a 
uniform bankruptcy act, so the commerce and travel of this Nation must in some 
way be safeguarded by a uniform medical 1)111 of rights or some such device to 
shield the unwary traveler who must visit given areas on business from excessive 
medical enthusiasms of the adventurers who, having gleaned a few facts from 
their extension courses in the Pocket Digest School of Medicine, become obsessed 
with the delusion that every human b^^i ng in sight can be lassoed for a set of 
unspeakable experiments with this or that nostrum of the moment. 

The couunittee may find also tliat the appended text of the Massachusetts House 
bill No. GOT, recently reported out unfavorai)ly, but favored by the chairman of 
the Joint Committee on I'ublic Health of the General Court, liolds constructive 
interest in that it was drafted by a practicing dentist, along with H. 608, a bill ^ 
patterned on the expertly drafted H. R. 2341 of the United States Congress, and * 
the minority report of the Massachusetts Study Commission ou Fluoridation 
of Public Water Supplies. 


(Note. — This bill is patterned on a dictum in the decision of United States 
tribunal No. 1, dated August 19, 1947, at Nuremberg, the court composed of four 
United States judges acting under authority of control council law No. 10. 
Certain medical insolences have been removed from the area of conduct defined 
by the bill, such as the preposterous expression "before the acceptance of an 
affirmative decision by the experimental (human) subject * * *" but with the 
exception of placing moral qualifications upon medical experimenters the bill 
follows the so-called Ten Standards in the main.) 

A Uniform Medical Bill of Rights, Proposed To Protect Travelers and Engaged in Commerce 
from Impressment Into Medical Research and Treatment Initiated, Conducted, or En- 
gaged in by Local Enthusiasts of Totalitarian Medicine 

Section 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject to undergo medical 
or surgical experimentation is absolutely essential. Such consent must be ex- 
press, it cannot be implied, and must be based upon complete Information to the 
proposed human subject by the experimenter, who shall explain beforehand to 
tlie proposed subject the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time. 
The proposed human subject shall have the legal capacity to give consent; shall 
be so situated as to be aitle to exercise free power of choice, without the inter- 
vention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, secrecy 
concerning any and all details known to the experimenting doctor or researchist, 
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion ; and shall have before the intia- 
tion of the exijeriment such sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the 
subject matter involved as shall enable him to make an understanding and 
enlightened decision whether to become a subject for the experiment. 

This latter element requires that before the experimental human subject 
affirmatively engages in the experiment by his own decision there shall be made 
known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment, the method 
and means by which it is to be conducted, all inconveniences and hazards reason- 
ably to be expected, and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly 
come from his participation in the experiment. 

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests 
upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is 
a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another except 
under the highest degree of care. 

Sec. 2. The experiment must promise a recognizable likelihood that it will 
result in good for humanity, unprocurable by other means or methods of study, 
and must not be random or unnecessary in nature. 

Sec. 3. The experiment shall be so designed and based upon the knowable facts 
of medical art and science as to support a reasonable anticipation of resultant 
benefit to human beings. 

Sec. 4. The experiment shall be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary 
physical and mental suffering and injury. 

Sec. 5. No experiment may be initiated or conducted at any stage of which 
there is reason to believe that death or disabling injury will possibly or prob- 
ably occur, except (by enabling act of Congress). 

48391—54 15 


Sec. 6. The degree of risk to the human experimental subject shaU never 
exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem being 

Sec. 7. Proper preparations must be made and adequate facilities provided 
upon the highest standard of care to protect the human experimental subject 
against all foreseeable possibilities of injury, disability, or death. 

Sec. 8. The experiment shall be conducted only by morally and scientifically 
qualified persons. The highest degree of care shall be maintained throughout 
the planning, progress, and postexperimental stages of the experiment, by those 
who initiate, conduct, or engage in the experiment. 

Sec. 9. The human experimental medical subject shall be at liberty at all 
times during the course of the experiment to bring it to an end by signifying 
that he has reached the mental and physical state where continuation would 
«eem to him to be impossible or to exceed his free choice and voluntary consent. 

Expression of the wish to withdraw from the experiment shall require im- 
mediate cessation of experimental use of the subject. The experimenting 
doctor or researchist shall remain alert at all times to see and put into effect 
any implied wish of the experimental subject whenever his afiirmative and 
voluntary consent becomes in the slightest degree uncertain, and must under 
all conditions act as the advocate of the human subject. 

When the human subject withdraws from an experiment before its completion 
he shall be free from all contractual obligations to the contrary, and any contract 
to compel continuance or to indemnify the experimenting doctors or researchists 
for withdrawal shall be null and void. 

Sec. 10. The initiators, conductors, and those who engage in the experiment 
shall be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if they or any of 
them have probable cause to believe in the exercise of the good faith, superior 
skill, careful judgment, and moral responsibility required of them that a con- 
tinuation of the experiment may possibly result in mental or physical injury 
to or disability or death of the human subject. 

Claimants of right to carry out massive experimental fluorine therapy upon 
arbitrarily selected human subjects among American free men, having objected 
to the interposition of the principles of the 10 standards of the Nuernberg 
decision, by those free people, as a scurrilous sophistry, while at the same time 
claiming those standards as a principal defense of inmates confined in concen- 
tration camps in Nazi Germany (often as a posthumous defense, or rather a 
retaliation) and having found no resistance to publication of their comments 
in JADA, the Journal of the American Dental Association, will be compelled 
to compare the treatment dealt out to the subjects of fiuorine experimentation 
with that written consent to perform an autopsy, or to carry out medical experi- 
ments on prisoners confined in jail, which experience has shown to be necessary. 

If the protection granted by judges of the United States Government to 
political prisoners confined in' Germany's concentration camps is greater than 
the protection which we as American free men can obtain against unexplained 
and unconsented experiments, such as those carried out with wildest abandon, 
in the random^ and unnecessary and wholly uncontrolled fluorine experimental 
research and treatment, from our law, enforcement agencies, then we are 
forced to appeal to our next line of defense against oligarchic controls, the 
legislative branch of our Government. 

Here we hope to obtain the necessary relief in fact we feel so certain that 
our legislators will find this their personal problem that we will forego any 
forecast of the course of further search for remedy, secure in the belief that 
the protection sought will be forthcoming promptly. 

The Chairman, It will not be possible to include in the record all 
of these newspaper articles you have submitted to us, however. 

I would suggest if you wish these you are free to take them or you 
may leave them as exhibits with the committee as you desire. 

Dr. Manning. Thank you, sir. We hope to be back. You will see 
us again, I am quite sure. 

(The newspaper articles referred to have been placed in the com- 
mittee files.) 



Mrs. Swift. The ex-mayor of Grand Rapids, who was in office at 
the time that fiuorination was put in Grand Rapids, told me it was 
in about 1933 or 1934 that Grand Rapids was fluorinated. 

When I spoke to him I said "But we do not have a record of that. 
It is supposed to be 1945." 

He said, "Oh, no. It was put in in the thirties in Grand Rapids." 

My interest was because my brother and his family live there and 
they have very bad health at the moment. 

The Chairman. Off the record. 

(Discussion held off the record.) 

The Chairman. We will conclude with the proponents of this 
legislation. I see a gentleman in the rear who has arisen and de- 
sires to say something. I assume not withstanding all we have heard 
there is something new. 


Dr. BETTS^-Jt-getreports from all over the country, and I find men 
like my ^nator TaJb, died after drinkino^ this water 1 year. 

I find iStrpreme Court Justice from Kentucky also buried after 
drinking the water 1 year. 

Many of our Senators and Representatives have gone since this 
town has been fluorinated. 

The Chairman. Dr. Betts, if you wish you can extend the re- 
marks you made yesterday to include what you have just said if you 
prefer to elaborate on them. 
Do we have someone else ? 

' Mrs. Lilllvn Vandermere. I wanted to say that I would like to ex- 
press my gratitude to you and your committee for having given us 
your excellent attention, to us the proponents of H. R. 2341. 

The Chairman. At this point in the record will be inserted the 
statements of the proponents of H. R. 2341. I have the following 
material : 

Letter from Dr. Arthur B. MacWliinnie, Seattle, Wash. 
Statement of Mrs. Josephine McQueen, Loudon, Tenn. 
Statement of Mr. H. L. Prestholdt, Minneapolis, Minn. 
Letter from Mr. Charles C. Deubel, Jr., South Orange, N. J. 
Statement of Dr. George L. Waldbott, Detroit, Mich. 
Letter from Mr. Pierrepont E. Twitchell, president, Citizens 

Medical Reference Bureau, Inc. 
Letter from Anna M. Ferguson, Washington, D. C. 
Statement of Dr. George J. Brett, Lancaster, Pa. 
Statement of Mr. Anthony J. Romeo, 12 Romeo Avenue, Mas- 

sena, N. Y. 
Letter from Dr. A. R. Gould, San Francisco, Calif. 
Letter from Mrs. Robert H. Crane, Anchorage, Alaska. 
(The statements referred to are as follows:) 


Seattle, Wash., May 22, 1954. 
Elton J. Latton, 

Clerk, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 
House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : For financial reasons I cannot act on the notice sent me regarding 
committee hearings on H. E. 2341 to appear before the committee. 

Were I to appear, my statement would be an elaboration and citing of many- 
instances of restriction of open discussion of the question of fluoridation by 
members of the dental profession in a position to gag opposition, not only in 
Seattle, but elsewhere. It would point out that such tactics appear general in 
the profession, and the endorsements of the A. D. A., therefore, become mean- 

That the great preponderance of dentists endorse fluoridation under these 
circumstances gives stature to those who, after thorough investigation of both 
sides of the question, now oppose oflScial position. 

The enclosed statement which appeared in Oral Hygiene is a condensed version 
of what my statement today would be. 

I request that it be read into the record of these hearings. 

Arthur B. MacWhinnie, D. M. D. 

On this day of May 22, 1954, Arthur B. MacWhinnie personally appeared 
before me and executed the foregoing instrument, signing same as his free and 
voluntary act and deed. 

[seal] Blanche Opperman, 

Notary Public (for State of Washington) . 

[Reprinted from the January 1953 issue of Oral Hygiene] 

NaF Fluoridation Is Compulsory Medication 

(By Arthur B. MacWhinnie, D. M. D.) 

Step by step, a piece at a time, our Government planners with their vast 
resources of money, manpower, and time, are weaving a pattern to destroy all 
vestiges of self-sufliciency in the average American and deliver him as a slave 
to his Government ; often this is done under the guise of "social progress." 

We have all been aware of this for years, and have deplored the planned 
destruction of the very qualities that have made America great. With the 
exception of voting at the polls, there was nothing the average dentist could do 
about it, vmtil the advent of fluoridation. 

It may be coincidence, but about the time the American Medical Association 
(aided by the dental profession) took a magnificent stand against Oscar Ewing 
and his Federal Security Agency and their plan to set up compulsory health 
insurance, the United States Public Health Service (also led by Ewing) suddenly 
concluded that fluoridation experimentation had gone far enough and was ready 
to be forced on the public, largely without their knowledge or consent. 

If they could not initiate the whole program, they would attempt partial 
compulsory mass medication, in principle and fact, by spreading their entire 
weight and resources over the Nation at one time. 

administering fluorides by prescription allows individual freedom of choice 
IN accordance with each patient's requirements 

I, too, was swept off my feet at the first onslaught of fluoridation in my com- 
munity.' I spoke for its adoption at several large meetings. It was not long, 
however, before questions arose in my mind as they have in the minds of all 
thinking dentists. 

I reversed my position when I suddenly realized how eftsy it is for man to 
become totalitarian in his thinking; when he thinks he knows what Is right and 
^ood for everyone; and attempts to force his decisions on others without their 
consent. Try that in your dental practice and see what happens. Your patients 
make the final decision as to which of your services or suggestions they will 
accept, and they can reject all or part. That is the way democracy should 

I could not deny the possible benefit of fiuoridation to children, despite its 
totalitarian aspect, without having an alternative to offer. If I could find an 
alternative, there was no reason whatever for my dictatorial thinking. On 


discussing tbe problem with my pharmacist, I fouud to my delight that there was 
another way of administering fluorides, less costly and in a purer form than the 
Government's method, and one which would he voluntary. 

I rushed to report my tindings to the dental profession. I received a great 
shock, for. in what I had still considered a free America, the platform of the 
Seattle District Dental Society was denied me to sjjeak against fluoridation, 
although the request was made two meetings in advance. We heard speakers 
for fluoridation at every regular meeting from December 1951 through March 

I then decided to write my report for my State Journal. I have been a member 
of the publications committee for several years, writing editorials which the 
profession apparently liked. Again I was stunned. My editorial, presenting 
"iU-gumeuts on both sides of the question, was removed at press time by the 
conuuittee for fluoridation. If the profession is not qualified to discuss this 
question, then who is? 

I lound, however, that a few wide-awake dentists had been prescribing fluo- 
rides for years and were violently opposed for many reasons to the principles 
of mass prescribing and compulsory mass medication. You, too, can prescribe 
then* if you and your patients believe, as I do, fluorides will reduce dental caries. 
In my office, no charge is made for a prescription to my regular patients. It is 
part of our service. 

Sodium fluoride "milk drops" are available. Four drops provide the daily 
dosage. The drops can be added to fruit juice, water, milk, or the baby's formula ; 
or they may be put on his cereal. The cost of this chemically pure drug is about 
1 cent a day. 

Quick dissolving tablets containing 1 milligram of .sodium fluoride (C. P.) also 
are available. Add one to a glass of any liquid the child drinks and he has 
received his daily dose. A tablet may be added to each quart of milk or fruit 
juice, and the quart bottle of water you keep in the ice box ; then whatever the 
child may drink during the day, he is receiving the governmental concentration — 
but who knows what total dosage? 

For economy, large capsules are available. Each capsule is designed to treat 
one 26-ounce box of salt, iodized or plain. A dozen of these capsules cost $1, 
and it is probable that a dozen boxes of salt will last a family 3 years or more, 
fiud the entire family receives an adequate dosage. 

Vitamin C and D tablets are available which contain fluoride in the proper 
dosage. These are somewhat more expensive. 

All of these methods have been used successfully for some time, but they have 
not received proper publicity. With a fraction of the space that is devoted in 
our journals to plumping for Government medication, these methods of fluoride 
medication could be publicized in a short time. Why hasn't this been done? 

Now that this information has been published, which has long been denied 
you by our official journals, there is no longer any reason for dentists to support 
the case for Government medicine. 

With several choices to suit the needs of different families, it is difficult to see 
why anyone should feel the necessity of impregnating the entire water supply of 
a city except for two reasons : 

1. Compulsion, which is a dangerous step. 

2. xVdditioual power and control for Government bureaus. 

Of course, I realize that some patients will not follow this treatment even if 
it is prescribed — the public health dentists have found this to be the case. Is 
that a valid reason for resorting to conipulsitm? 

Frtciloiii of choice 

No voluntary method is as efficient as compulsion. But I still prefer the prin- 
ciple of freedom of choice, especially when my refusal to consume a drug neither 
harms anyone nor prevents others from having it. 

The Public Health Service claims to be concerned with the health of all the 
people of this country. What steps are they taking to provide fluorides for over 
one-third of our entire population who do not drink city water? If they succeed 
in the fluoridation of sufficient public water systems, they actually will prevent 
the use of any other method that will benefit all the people. 

The salt companies' soon will be in a position to use European patents for 
treating salt with fluorides — if there is enough of a market left to make it worth 

1 When this product is marketed, there will be no need for fluoridation of water supplies, 
nor prescribing. All Americans, rural as well as urban, can Lave fluorides in proper dosage 
without increasing Government payrolls 1 cent. 


their while. Then, tinder the guidance of the dentist or physician, the patient 
may choose or reject the fluoridized salt sold at his grocer's. 

You may recall the attempt a few years ago to add iodine to the water supplies. 
Other ways were found to provide children with this drug and before long it was 
learned that iodine aggravated certain types of goiter. 

The question is : Shall we turn over our children's dental care to the Govern- 
ment or will the profession continue to control it? Given this power, the Gov- 
ernment bureaus will continue to reach for more. 

I will yield my right to prescribe and control fluoride medication for my 
patients to private enterprise, rather than to a Government bureau. This is one 
Government control that we, as dentists, can aid in eliminating. 

I prefer the middle of the road. Let us prescribe fluorides for children with 
their parents' consent, only when they may be beneficial. 

After extensive testimony from a host of leading scientists, the Delaney con- 
gressional committee investigating fluorides says, "Go slow." Long-term effects 
of fluorides only now are being investigated. 

Dentists, physicians, lawyers, and businessmen led the fight that defeated 
fluoridation in Seattle. They are prepared to help others. 

Do you have the will to resist? 

1025 Medical-Dental Building, Seattle 1. Wash. 

Statement of Mrs. Josephine (Tom) McQueen, Loudon, Tenn. 

Mr. Chairman, for many years I have been deeply concerned over the wide- 
spread and growing use of fluorides in water systems. 

While I myself, do not have a professional background in this line, I have 
talked with many of the leading authorities concerning the harmful effects of 
fluoridation. I am distressed that more emphasis has not been placed iTpon 
the evidence of those who oppose fluoridation and I respectfully ask that they 
consider the data which I have gathered. 

I present first a leaflet with statement by Dr. Clive M. McCay of Cornell 

fluorides poison to all living tissue 

We have long studied fluoride in the body and do realize that it accumulates 
in bone. We believe, as a whole, that the putting of fluoride in water is being 
pushed too rapidly. The original plan was to study the matter for 10 years and 
only a little more than half this period has passed. 

As a whole, the medical profession knows very little about the matter, so they 
are approving it. 

The dental profession in most areas can say nothing because they will be 
accused of selfish motives if they show any signs of opposition. 

Therefore, most of them agree. 

However, there is a group of dentists in New York City who do believe that 
the data are not sound. 

Clive M. McCay, Ph. D., 
Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 

At your drugstore look in the big book "Analogous changes in teeth, 

entitled : "Bones become hard and fragile. 

"The Dispensatory of the United "The use of fluoride-containing den- 
States of America — ^24th edition" page tifrices and internal medicants is not 
1456. justified." 

"Fluorides are violent poison to all United States Department of Agricul- 

living tissue because of their precipita- ture. Yearbook 19.39 — 

tion of calcium. They cause fall of "Food and Life" pages 212 and 213. 

blood pressure, respiratory failure and "It is especially important that fluor- 

general paralysis. Continuous inges- ine be avoided from birth to the age of 

tion of nonfatal doses according to Soil- 12 years." 
man (J. Pharmacol.; 1921, 17, 197) 
cause general cachexia and permanent 
Inhibition of growth. 

I had been told by the proponents of fluoridation that the statements made 
by Dr. McCay were obsolete and would not now fit the present situation. In 
reply to these arguments I would like to offer a letter from Dr. McCay dated 
April 28, 1954, in which he refutes any statement that his leaflet is now 


New York State College of Agriculture, 
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Department of Animal Husbandry, 

Ithaca, N. Y., April 28, 1954. 
Mrs. Josephine INIcQueen, 

McQueen Farms, London, Tenn. 
Dear IMrs. McQueen : Thanks for your letter of recent date. 
I cannot see how your information concernin,^ fluoridation of water can be 
out of date. I believe the following facts still stand. In the first place, I know 
of no physician in any health department who has ever done any work with 
fluorides. In the next place, I know that among dentists there is substantial 
division in the regard to the use of fluorine in water, although dentists will 
not express themselves in public because they fear bad public relations if they 
vote against fluoridation. Finally, I know of no foreign country that is making 
use of fluorides in water, although I am certain that teeth in countries such 
as England, Switzerland, and Sweden are bad or worse than those in America. 
I also know that while I was living in Switzerland, there was a scientiflc com- 
mission considering the problem and this commission had been in existence for 
some time. If this panacea is a hundred percent satisfactory, why have these 
scientific commissions that are under far less political pressure than they are 
in the United States refused thus far to put fluorides into any of the water 
of these foreign nations? I understand that when the representatives from 
England came to visit this country, they were piloted around in much the Russian 
fashion showing them only the people in favor of fluoriding water. 

I cannot see how any of these facts have grown out of date if you have them. 
I, myself, believe that all of us wish to do the best possible for the children, 
but that we do not wish to dive into this matter in a huge nation when smaller 
nations with scientists who are equally as good are refusing to go in. 
Yours sincerely, 

Clive M. McCay, 
Professor of Nutrition. 

Then, I also respectfully ask that the committee give considei'ation to the 
statement made b.v Thomas H. Allen, president of the Memphis Light, Gas, & 
Water Division of the city of Memphis. 

Mr. Allen has had much technical assistance and advice in the preparation 
of this statement, and this, coupled with his many years of experience in the 
water division, makes him extremely well qualified. This is a revised copy 
and was submitted to me by Mr. Allen with his letter of April 19, 1954. 

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, City of Memphis, 

Monphis, Tenn., April 19, 195^. 
Mrs. Tom McQueen, 

Loudon, Tenn. 
Dear Mrs. IMcQueen : Enclosed is a revised copy of Fluoridation of the Mem- 
phis Water Supply. My reasons for making revisions are as follows : 

Page 2, the paragraph relative to iodine tells the story correctly, but it was 
put into practice in such a small area that it could be misunderstood. In fact, 
it has been misunderstood. It was found that salt containing iodine could be 
used without running the risk of giving iodine to people who did not need it, 
and the result was that this whole program was dropped by the public health 

The statement in my original paper is correct, but the whole program did 
not get very far before the change in policy was announced. 

Referring to ninth paragraph on page 6, we found that it would be better to 
make a broader statement relative to the differences in the different types of 
fluorides, and a new paragraph has been substituted for the original one. 
As revised, this paper may be used. 
I will appreciate your returning the first copy to me. 
Very truly yours, 

Thos. H. Allen, President. 


Ft-Uoridation of the Memphis Water Supply 
the public good 

The Board of Light, Gas & Water Commission is ready to do everything that 
contributes to the public welfare. When convinced that fluoridation of the 
Memphis water supply will contribute to the welfare of all the people, I can 
promise that no time will be lost in putting in the equipment necessary to do 
the job regardless of the energy required or of the cost. 

However, it is an obligation of the board to supply a safe, sanitary water for 
public consumption. Pure water is an essential. It is the most important of 
the three services rendered by the division. 

Until the evidence is completely convincing, I am sure that this board will 
not add fluoride to the water supply. 

I have been accused of being bullheaded about this. I am and will continue 
to be until I am sure that any change made in the water supply is. in fact, for 
the benefit of all the people. This is my duty. Surely nobody would want 
those in charge of the water supply to be otherwise. I, therefore, plead that we 
approach this problem with recognition that we should be hard to satisfy and 
that no amount of pressure should make us yield in this matter : and likewise if 
convinced that fluoridation is for the liest and that no amount of pressure should 
deter us from adding fluoride to the water. 

First : Controlled studies, under scientific supervision, are under way in only 
;i few cities. These experiments have not been underway for a sufficient length 
of time to establish any conclusive facts as to either the benefits or ill effects of 
fluoridation on the complicated human system. 

Years ago when I was a young man, the dentists solved many problems — 
temporarily — by killing the nerves of the tooth. It took time to develop the 
disastrous effect of that mistake. Of more recent date, I recall so many teeth 
that were condemned because they were dead. These are all recollections and 
nothing more. I am sure you get the point. 

Second: How much fluoride? The LTniversity of New Mexico, where large 
areas are blessed or cursed with too much or too little fluorine, has made studies 
relative to fluorine poisoning and mottling of the teeth in various degrees. The 
destructive effect of too much fluorine upon human teecth can be horrible 
to the person so affected. 

It has been brought to the attention of the public that a water supply having 
0.5 part per million of fluorine produced mild fluorosis in D percent of the 
children 12 to 14 years old, and that a supply of 0.7 part per million produced 
fluorosis in the same age bracket of 12.6 percent. 

It is proposed to add 1 part per million to IV2 parts per nrillion to the Memphis 

These recommendations and discussions do not take into account the dif- 
ferent chemical characteristics of the different water supplies. Perhaps it 
makes no difference. But Ohio River water at Cincinnati and Louisville, water 
from the Great Lakes, Mississippi River water, and Memphis well water are not 
the same. Climate and geography may have a bearing. These questions have 
been raised ; they have not been answered. 

The amount of dosage of any medicine for one child would not necessarily 
be correct for another child. Surely the correct dose for a 2-year-old would not 
necessarily be correct for a 12-year-old. 

And no matter what the dose, what effect will 1 percent of fluoride have on old 
I)eople, on sick people, on bones, on lungs, or .ioints? 

Third: By what authority does an individual or group have to administer 
medicine to another person for treatment of an uncommunicable disease? Do 
any of you contend that we have a right to prescribe medicine for you and your 
children whether or not you want to take the medicine? "Very few individuals 
stop me on the street or elsewhere to urge fluoridation. Many stop me to protest 
the use of fluoride. Do we have a right to administer a medicine to those' 
people in the absence of the threat of an epidemic — medicine they do not want 
to take? 

Admittedly, fluorine is a rank poison, and, admittedly, just the proper amount 
should be added. This amount is usually referred to as 1 part per million. It 
has been suggested by a State public health official that should Memphis add 
fluorine this dosage should be reduced to 0.8 part per million. What this means 
is, that if you put 1 ounce of fluorine in 7,500 gallons of water it will be too 
much. This should be reduced to 0.8 of an ounce to be proper. In other words. 


there is a difference of 20 percent between what is good and what is bad. Is it 
not common liuowledge that the water intake by individuals and the ability 
of individuals to assimilate elements varies much moi'e than this 20 percent, and, 
therefore, is it not (;lear that there is no way to add any of the presently avail- 
able fluorine compounds to a public water supply except that the amount added 
may be proper for some, but will definitely be improper for many? This should 
indicate that a dosage of fluorine as now constituted suited to a particular 
bracket and administered to all elements of society certainly appears to be an 
inaccurate, unscientific, and unprofessional approach to a health problem. 

It is so important to linnt the amount, yet it never seems to occur to Ihe 
dentists that one person will drink more water than another, and more in hot 
weather than in cold. So many questions go unanswered that I become fearful 
that the whole program is carelessly conceived. 

Fourth : Should we use fluorides on our lawns, in steam plants, electric bat- 
teries, bakeries, and all the other commercial and industrial plants whether 
they like it or not? Perhaps it will do them no harm. Should this not be 
predetermined by exhaustive tests? 

Fifth: The Public Health Service states: "National organizations of pro- 
fessional health workers, impressed by the findings of decades of research on 
fluoride and dental decay, have endorsed the adding of fluoride to community 
water supplies. They include: American Dental Association, State and Terri- 
torial Dental Health Directors, American Association of Public Health Dentists, 
Public Health Service — Federal Security Agency, State and Territorial Health 
Ofiicers, American Public Health Association, and American Water Works 

This statement is not so. The correct statement can be found in the Journal 
of the American Water Works Association, volume 41, page 575, which reads 
as follows: 

"The Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies 

"statement of recommended policy and procedure 

"In communities where a strong public demand has developed and the pro- 
cedure has the full approval of the local medical and dental societies, the local 
and State health authorities, and others respcmsible for the communal health, 
water departments, or companies may properly participate in a program of 
fluoridation of public water supplies." 
Thi.s is not an endorsement. 

Waterworks men are mostly engineers and chemists dealing with the ordi- 
nary problems of water supjdy and water treatment. They are not equipped 
by training to deal with a medical problem such as fluoridation. 

This statement clearly states that if those responsible for the health of the 
community will take the responsibility for fluoridation, that the water depart- 
ments may participate by actually adding the fluoridation, that the water de- 
partments may participate by actually adding the fluoride to the water. And, In 
the recommended procedure, the water utility should he relieved of all liability. 

Sixth : But I see no way for the water department to escape liability. Ap- 
paratus may go wrong, men may make mistakes, and overdosage may result. 

If your children or grandchildren (I am concerned about the grandchildren) 
turn up with mottled teeth, who pays the damages? Will the Council of Civic 
Clubs write the guaranty to hold the division harmless and back it with liability 
insurance of suflicient amount to cover the possible claims from 400,000 people? 

Seventh : The dental society has instigated numerous statements on fluorine 
but has failed to tell the public what a local dentist told a group in Memphis, 
which was that, in general, dentists do not like to serve children and that by 
putting in the same time on adults, they can gather in more money. Since 
certainly most dentists have received their education and training largely at 
public expense, they should feel obligated to serve all elements of the puhlic, 
including children. 

Eighth : Statements have been made to the public that by adding fluorine, 
an improvement of 65 percent results. This is a figure obtained by project- 
ing a curve into years ahead and is not the record of what has actually been 
accomplished. Since this is the case, one would be interested in how the 
figure of 45-percent improvement resulting from topical applications was arrived 
at. Since all the emphasis on fluorine has been in one direction only, it could 
be that the 65-percent figure is too high, and the 45-percent figure is too low. 


However, assuming the figure of 45-percent improvement, resulting from topical 
applications, to be correct as claimed by the dentists, is it not commonsense 
to send the child to the dentist every 2 years and have fluorine applied? This 
visit should be made regardless of fluorine, and while there the simple appli- 
cation can be made, thus bestowing its benefits to the one who needs it, without 
involving the many thousands who cannot profit by its use and do not choose 
to be forced to swallow it. In any event, this procedure for better or for worse 
limits the hazard to those who wish to take the chance. 

Ninth : As I understand it, fluorine is present in many foods and is essential 
to the human body. Sodium fluoride, the substance proposed to be used in our 
water, is a deadly poison, and is entirely different from the various complex 
fluorine-bearing compounds, organic and inorganic, occurring in nature. 

Tenth : When I first heard of the proposal to fluoridate public water supplies 
as a cure for decay of teeth, my immediate reaction was "wonderful." It seemed 
so easy to do. 

When I learned that too much fluorine might discolor, mottle, or destroy the 
teeth, requiring accurate control of the amounts introduced into the water supply, 
I decided that the program could be a first-grade nuisance to the water division. 

Every time a mother found a cavity in a youngster's tooth we would be at 
fault for not providing enough fluoride ; and whenever some youngster developed 
discolored or mottled teeth, the wrath of an outraged family would be unspar- 
ingly poured upon our heads. As a nuisance possibility it made me shudder, and 
I began to be afraid of it, because if it could be a nuisance, it could be dangerous. 

Sabotage is an ugly word. The enemies of America have not overlooked the 
possibility of using the water supplies of the country to sabotage the health of 
the people. It is an item that has given us some concern in preparing the civil- 
defense measures necessary in case of war. 

If we fluoridate our water, we will equip all of our plants to inject a deadly 
poison into our water. Has it occurred to any of you here that saboteurs, just 
one in each plant, by turning a valve, could inject a tasteless poison into our 
water in deadly quantities? 


Speaking for myself only as an officer of the water division, I am not convinced 
that fluoridation is desirable, or even safe. 

It should be understood that I have not reached any final conclusion about 
the matter other than a definite decision that we should not risk spoiling the 
best water supply in the Nation unless there is definite and conclusive proof that 
the addition of fluorine to Memphis water will be of benefit to all the people, 
worth what it wi'l cost, and that the use of fluoride is safe for all the people — 
young children, old people, well and sick people. Since the responsibility falls 
on the city government and the division, I feel, in the absence of convincing 
proof, that the answer should be "No." 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I feel sure that the committee will give equal 
weight to both sides of this important issue since undoubtedly it will directly 
affect all of us and all of our families. 

I feel that in view of the serious consequences of fluoridation the committee 
should exhaust every possible means of investigating this proposal before taking 
favorable action. 

Statement of Views on Proposal To Make It Unlawful To Add Any Fluoride 
Compound to Public Drinking Watek, by H. L. Prestholdt 

This statement refers to H. R. 2341, introduced by the Honorable Roy Wier, 
intended to make it unlawful to dissolve any fluoride compound in waters 
intended for human consumption. 

For the purpose of this statement, whenever fluorine, fluoride, sodium fluoride, 
or the fluosilicate, or when any of these terms are used it means, and the reference 
is to a fluoride compound irrespective of its nature, composition, or physical 

The element fluorine is a member of the halogen group. It is extremely 
poisonous, dangerous to handle, and found in nature usually in combination with 

Several years ago, it was brought to the attention of several scientists that 
wherever the soil or water contained quantities of fluorine, that invariably in 


such areas, a number of people suffered from fluorosis. Considerable work was 
undertaken at that time to discover some practical means by which the fluorine 
or fluoride could be removed. 

Sodium fluoride is the salt of an alkali and hydrofluoric acid. This acid is 
the result of a combination between the fluorine gas and the element hydrogen. 
When the element sodium is added it will combine with the acid to form sodium 
fluoride and by adding silicon, it will then form the sodium fluosilicate. Both 
of these salts are extremely poisonous and are frequently compared with arsenic, 
but they are considered more dangerous because of the great affinity of fluorine 
for calcium. . 

Salts or compounds containing fluorine are not recognized as having any 
therapeutic or medicinal value. A thorough search of medical literature does 
not establish or reveal any pathological condition where a fluoride compound is 
recommended either for internal or external use. 

Physiologically, the sodium fluoride or the fluosilicate appear on the market m 
a white, heavy, dusf-fine power. It is being offered in two distinct grades, the 
commercial and the chemically pure. The commercial grade contains from 90 
to 95 percent of sodium fluoride, the balance being inert or impure ingredients 
difficult to dispose of or remove. It is tasteless and odorless and completely 
soluble in water ; and, because of these characteristics, it has been used exten- 
sively as a rat poison or pest exterminator. 

The principal source of the fluorides are the piles of slag containing the ele- 
ment fluorine and is the result of the use of ciyolite in the extraction of the 
metal aluminum. 

Sodium fluoride or the fluosilicate does not appear in nature as such. They 
are manufactured and usually from the leftovers at the aluminum plant. The 
piles of these byproducts are difficult to dispose of as it is largely waste and 
because of the danger associated with any materials containing fluorine, it has 
been a manufacturing problem for many years. 

There has been a great struggle going on for considerable time to dispose of 
this waste. It is not permitted to be dissolved in rivers or streams. It is 
against the law to dispose of this material in the river or sea. The reason why 
is due to the inherent risks with possible effects on wildlife and farm stock. 

Great effort has been made to find an outlet for the fluorides. It is used quite 
extensively in art and industry especially in manufacturing adhesives and paints, 
but there is not sufficient industrial use to consume the constantly increasing 
quantity of waste containing fluorine, largely due to the enormous expansion 
and development of the metal aluminum industry. 

For almost a generation, it has been recognized that in the fluoride sections 
of our country — notably the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and cer- 
tain counties in the State of Texas — there is a percentage of fluorine in the 
water and the soil. It is in these localities where endemic fluorosis is prevalent 
both in humans and the animal kingdom. This discovery has led to many 
different opinions, but scientists have definitely brought out the fact that when 
young children in the age group from 8 to 10 years ingest fluorine or its com- 
pound that the incidence of dental caries are somewhat reduced as compared 
with similar conditions existing in localities or other States where the fluorine 
content of soil and water is practically nil. 

It is not generally understood how nature dissolves the fluorides because 
calcium fluoride is insoluble. Somehow, nature has converted the calcium 
fluoride into a soluble substance where it is even possible for plantlife to absorb 
it and vegetables grown in soil tinctured with fluorides are found to be rich in 

Despite this situation, there is great opposition to the natural fluoride com- 
pound in these States because it leaves the teeth in a mottled, jagged, and brittle 
condition. It is an established fact that dental fluorosis is found in these com- 
muiiitios with drinking water that contains 1 part per million and when the 
permanent teeth of children so raised they tend to erupt more or less chalky 
while in color and later tend to become pitted and stained yellow, brown, or 
almost black. 

Scientists upon careful investigation admit that the teeth are less prone to 
decay at an early age, but subsequent to childhood these facts are reversed. The 
fluoride content is then proven to be a masking operation. The teeth become 
infinitely more susceptible to decay and are so brittle it is difficult for any dentist 
to accomplish needed repair. 

Cognizance has been taken of these facts in the communities where the fluorides 
are naturally in the soil and water. It is frequently referred to as "natural 


fluoride," which is fully justified because calcium fluoride is in itself insoluble ; 
and, secondly, because the method under which nature effects a solution is 
unknown to scientists. 

We shall not speculate just how nature effects either the solution or the 
extraction. The simple fact we must keep in mind is that the fluorides manu- 
factured artificially are totally different in their toxic activities. They are 
infinitely more poisonous and destructive to life than the fluorides referred to 
as "natural." 

With this as an established fact; the great opposition to what is represented 
as fluoridation is the thought of permitting authorities to substitute the com- 
mercial grade of raw fluorides and dissolve this in the public drinking water 
in lieu of the "natural" or "conditioned" fluorides. The purpose of this bill is 
to prevent and make it illegal or unlawful for anyone to dissolve any compound 
containing fluorine in the drinking water : and it is on this account that I request 
that this committee approve the resolution in question and recommend to Con- 
gress its passage. 

Doctors of medicine authorized to practice are familiar with the therapeutic 
effects of drugs and medicines as well as toxicology and dosage. In a period of 
many years of practicing pharmacy, I have not come across any record or found 
any evidence showing that doctors prescribe or make use of any fluoride compound 
as an internal medicine. The literature is quite extensive concerning fluorides 
but is practically silent when it comes to describe its therapeutic value for human 
ingestion — the safe does that can he taken internally without serious or harmful 
result. But every medical man knows that to obtain the greatest result from 
any drug or medicine it is important to remember, especially in connection with 
fluorines, that more fluorides will be retained if It is given in small multiple 
doses than when a similar quantity is given in a small number of larger doses. 
A great deal has been written about the quantity of fluorides proposed to be used 
and that the individual dose is exceedingly small and on account of that no 
deleterious effect is found. It is proposed to limit the quantity to 1.2 parts per 
million, which is considered infinitestimal, but it is well for this committee to 
remember that the highest authorities in the land agree that one part per million 
is the cause of endemic fluorosis with a marked tendency to mottling of the 
teeth. It is because fluorides like the iodides, the mercurial preparations, and 
the salts of heavy metals possess the arbitrary quality of accumulating in the 
system, and in the case of the fluorides, they will combine with the calciiim in 
the bones and teeth and finally flow over into the soft tissues with injurious 

The introduction of this legislation is intended to meet the challenge of the 
Department of Health, Welfare, and Education, which will be referred to here- 
inafter as the Federal Board of Health, as this is the bureau that is responsible 
for the introduction on a national scale any fluoride compound to be dissolved 
in public drinking water and commonly referred to as "fluoridation." It is a 
proposal introduced simultaneously with the former administration's attempt to 
introduce to America a policy which has become recognized as "socialized 
medicine." In the beginning, it was not the intention, however, to introduce 
the fluorides in the public drinking water or make it compulsory that every indi- 
vidual be obliged to consume the drug. The first original attempt to use the 
raw fluorides was described in one of the public documents, GPO-O-813330. 
This was a method of using a fluoride tlierapy not by feeding it to the child as a 
sodium fluoride solution but was recommended for topical application, and the 
literature stated that "for the first time in history a practical method for the 
prevention of teeth decay that can be applied on a group basis has been intro- 
duced. Tests so far have shown that out of every 10 teeth that might otherwise 
decay, 4 may be saved by a new preventive method." Apparently, it had not yet 
been called to the attention of the Public Health Board that the quantity of 
sodium fluoride used in tropical application would be very insignificant indeed 
and would under no circumstances solve the problem confronting the concerns 
burdened with very large waste piles of cryolite residues saturated more or less 
with fluorine. Sometime subsequent to the recommendation of the topical use 
of fluorides, there was a change in the minds of the members of the Federal 
Health Board. Although they had hailed the topical application as the greatest 
discovery in history, they quickly united, as the minutes of their meetings 
indicate, on selling the American public on dissolving the fluorides in the drinking 
water and that every person irrespective of age or physical condition ingest the 
fluorides, although they freely admitted that no possible benefit could be derived 
by anyone except those in the age group of from 1 to 10 years. 


You will iindersfaud from this statement tlial the proposal of fluoridation is 
not in Itself a health measure or a health program as represented. It is pure 
politics; and, as such, it has met with considerable success as. according to their 
own figures, they now have practically a thousand communities aggregating 
some 10 million people daily drinking fluoride solution and consuming foods 
that have been cooked in it. It would take too long to recite the dishonesty 
and chicancery employed to promote fluoridation, the falsehoods, half-truths, 
distortions and evasions, the rigged endorsements and carefully engineered pub- 
lic demand. There is evidence to show that the proponents of fluoridation have 
tried desperately to secure public approval and to put the proposition across 
on a grand scale before the people realize the inherent dangers in the whole 
evil undertaking. 

The first step was apparently to set up a plan which would conceal the true 
facts from the public and lend it a veneer of respectability by instituting sev- 
eral proving grounds or test areas wiiereby after 10 years they could prove con- 
clusively that fluorides in the drinking water were beneficial and reduced the 
incidence of caries in the young age group. But even with this small attempt 
there arose considerable public opposition. Consequently, the Federal Health 
Bureau, instead of waiting for the results of the 10 years" experiments and 
trials, began to forcibly introduce fluoridation on a national scale. For this 
purpose, they made the various State boards of health and dental associations 
not only their ready tool to carry out their sinister purpose, but the boards 
of healtli and dental associations became their captives and have been working 
hand in glove with the Federal Health Bureau in their effort to fluoridate the 
American public. There are, of course, a great many individual dentists, 
prominent men, who are opposed to this form of mass medication. Many of 
them have dared to voice their opinion and hostility to the whole program. 
They have helped greatly to arouse the public against the whole plan. 

It has not been brought to our attention that any of our State board of 
liealth or the Federal Bureau has ever made a definite statement that by ingest- 
ing daily a fluoride that anybody past the age of 12 or 15 years could or would 
receive any or the slightest benefit from this medication. When you take into 
consideration that only 5 percent of the Nation's public water supply is used in 
the kitchen for cooking or for drinking, and as only the children between the 
ages of 1 to 10 admittedly are the only group that could receive any benefit, 
it means that only half of 1 percent of the total fluoride used can be used eft'ec- 
tivel.v. In other words, out of every $100 of tax money TiO cents will be used 
for the proponents' good purpose — the balance, $99.50 will be wasted and go 
down the drain. 

Although this may seem like a terrific waste of public funds, the American 
people would be willing and could well afford to do it providing they were 
assured of definite benefits for their children or for themselves. Unfortunately, 
that is not the ca.'^e : but. instead, we have embarked upon a program that vio- 
lates man's greatest experience, viz to keep the public water supply pure, 
wholesome, and potable. Fluoridation is mass medication on a grand scale 
ostensibly to accomplish a reduction of the incidence of caries of the very 
young, but it is mass medication and provided it is found to be legal or not 
made illegal, we may then have opened the way to use the various public 
water supplies througliout the coimtry for further experiments in medication 
in such well known human ailments as rheumatism, high blood pressure, dia- 
betes and anemia. 

In order to save space, or rather for lack of space, the customary method of 
inserting the origin, the documentary evidence or reference after each state- 
ment or paragraph, I have reluctantly disi>ensed with, but will supply upon 
request to proper parties the origin and full authentic information concerning 
every statement made. 

The following facts appearing below are taken from : 

Investigations and research by physiologists and biochemists, professors of 
medical colleges, M. I. T., engineers. 

The hearing before Hon. Dr. Miller and other Members of Congress. 

Opinions and court decisions and testimony by experts and scientists at trials 
in the courts of law. 

Reference books, medical literature, documents, scientific papers, medical 
dictionaries, encyclopedias, pamphlets, booklets, scientific articles, United 
States dispensatory. 

Books on chemistry, pharmacological therapeutics by Drs. Goodman and Gil- 


Papers from Professor Taylor of the University of Texas, Dr. Cristinai, Drs. 
Smith of Tucson, riz., Charles Eliot Perkins, Washington. D .C, biochemist. 
Dr. Charles A. Brusch of the Cambridge Medical Center, Dr. V. O. Hurme of 
the Forsythe Infirmary, Dr. Leo Spira of New York. 

"Sodium fluoride is a general protoplasmic poison." 

"Hydrofluoric acid produces a vesication and deep, progressive destruction of 

"Dangerous symptoms have been reported in man from 0.25 gms. of sodium 

"Fluoride poisoning tends to lower the calcium of the plasma." 

"Fluorides are strongly inhibitory to some enzymes." 

"The addition of 0.4 percent of sodium fluoride renders shed blood non- 

"Sodium fluoride depresses the respiration of finely divided muscles." 

"Lipase is inhibited by N. A. F. 1 : 5000." 

"It is toxic to nerves." 

"Endemic fluorosis is a serious problem in Argentina." 

"It lias not yet been demonstrated that the addition of raw fluorides to the 
water supply has the same effect on children living continuously for the first 12 
years of life in fluoride areas." 

"If caries do start in mottled teeth it spreads rapidly." 

"The changes in human teeth consists of chalky white patches often pitted and 

"Bone changes are seen especially with industrial exposure to the dust of 
cryolite or phosphate rock." 

"Nonfatal doses when ingested continously cause general cachexia and in- 
hibition of gi'owth." 

"In lower animals, analogous changes occur in teeth and the bones become 
hard, fragile, or brittle." 

"Marconi reported severe acute parenchymatous nephritis or chronc poison- 
ing of guinea pigs with fairly large doses of fluoride." 

"Fluorine is not and cannot be effectively used for the purpose of sterilizing 
the water." 

"It remains in the water and a rise in temperature accelerating evaporation 
leaves the fluorine unaffected and increases the concentration." 

"Fluoridation will not cure dental caries nor preA-ent it entirely even in the 
young-age group which it is designed particularly to serve." 

"We cannot escape the conclusion that fluoridation is a form of medication." 

"Damaging to the brain and nerve cells." 

"Harmful to the reproductive organs with the resultant lowering of the birth 

"Affects the thyroid gland and damages the liver." 

"Creates a high incidence of bone fractures." 

"Some of the highest life expectancies are reported from the regions of the 
globe with the least fluorine in the soil or water." 

"There is no disagreement about the fact that fluorine is a protoplasmic 

"Since nerve function is not completely independent of the influence of 
calcium exchange, and since the intake of fluorine, in turn, has some influence 
upon the utilization of calcium, it would seem that there is a good theoretical 
basis for instituting upon some study of the role of fluorides from the neurol- 
ogists' viewpoint." 

"Fluorides are violent poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation 
of calcium." 

"They cause fall of blood pressure, respiratory failure, and general paralysis." 

"Since all living processes occur in matter in the colloidal state, many patho- 
logical conditions, even probably insanity, results directly from disturbance of 
the colloidal state." 

"It is an established fact that the fluorides cause breaking down of protein 
and disturb the colloidal state." 

"To me it is unthinkable that the Public Health Service should recommend 
universal medication of water for everyone." 

"I have repeatedly produced clear and conclusive evidence that proves fluorine 
can and does play an important part in promoting the first stage of cancer and 
in accelerating the second stage." 


"The results show no change in the incidence of cancer, but rather indicates 
a shorter life span in the mice receiving the fluoridated water." 

"The effect of fluorine on the human body is very little known." 

"The scientific knowledge is very limited." 

"The main thing to remember about fluorides is that they are protoplasmic 
poison, and they have never been medically approved." 

"Extensive pharmaco-dynamic research from reliable sources leaves us speech- 
less when we think of a plan to fluoridate the water of the entire Nation." 

"It can only be classified as mass murder." 

"These are some of the important conclusions: Sodium fluoride in small re- 
peated doses may affect digestion by interference with enzyme action." 

"May affect heart muscles by alteration of the heart solutions, calcium change." 

"May affect urinary tract and eventually cause uremia." 

"May give rise lo aplastic anemias, causes incoagulability of the blood, attracts 

"May cause serious bone change, precipitation of calcium." 

"May induce many serious and varied nervous manifestations." 

"Cause psychic and motor disturbances." 

"All individuals may be allergic to some * * * that allergy is a biologi- 
cal alteration of the cell protoplasm. Fluorides are classified as protoplasmic 

"Fluorine affects all parts of the body causing hardening of the tissues, osteo- 
malacia of the bones, otosclerosis of the ears, sclerosis of the arteries." 

"The toxic aft'ect of fluorine increases as the temperature rises, a fact that is 
noted in the pami)hlet of the American Dental Association." 

"Since fluorine plays no useful part in human metabolism, it is false to claim, 
as some advocates do, that failure to put fluorine into the drinking water deprives 
children of something they need." 

"Artificial fluoridated water tends to aggravate condition in people afflicted 
with goiter." 

"It is the conclusion of reputable physiologists that the total effects of fluorine 
upon the human system is harmful." 

"Mass medication of the whole population by means of fluoridation does not 
take into account the fact that every human being differs from evei"y other, and 
what may not seriously harm one may kill another." 

"High humidity increases the toxic effect of fluorine." 

"The commercial inorganic sodium fluoride or fluosilicate contains minute 
quantities of many other ingredients." 

"It is safe to say that fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the 
history of medicine." 

It would be possible under the circumstances to continue listing objections of 
vital importance against the use of fluorides in any quantity whatsoever. I want 
to repeat that fluoridation is definitely not a health program ; it is political in 
every sense of the word. The Public Health Bureau has prostituted its high 
office and has embarked on a program which, if carried to its ultimate, might 
endanger the health and welfare of the whole Nation. 

Placing of vast quantites of a deadly poison adjacent to or in close proximately 
to the public water supply is in itself filled with the greatest risk ; and, it is the 
opinion of a vast number of people in America that such quantity of poison, 
with its great potentiality for damage and permanent harm, should be forbidden 
by Federal law. 

I respectfully submit the above for your consideration. 

Law Offices, Charles C. Deubel, Jr., 

Newark, N. J., May 15, lOSJf. 
Hon. Charles xV. Wolvertox, 

House Office Building, WuHlxinnton, D. C. 
Dear Sir : I am greatly concerned over the fluoridation of our drinking water. 
I have opposed it locally (I am a village trustee at South Orange, N. J.) and will 
oppose it statewide and nationwide because I am fearful of it from a national 
security point of view. 

I have studied this fluoridation for the purpose of making a decision on it for 
my community, and I can't understand the great pressure for its advocacy by 
governmental agencies and dental societies. I an* suspicious of this pressure. 


If it were such a good thing theu pressure would not be needed. Why, why there- 
fore, are the proponents trying to force it upon an unwilling and in most cases, 
an unknowing ijublic? 

First of all, if I or any other citizen believes that fluoridation is good for his 
children's teeth, we can go to any dentist and have it applied or a treatment 
rendered. Why, if I can do this, de we have to force it on all of the public? 

Secondly, fluoride is a poison and while allegedly not deleterious immediately 
in the portions advocated for use, it is certain that an overdose is lethal. Why 
risk a lethal poison in our water systems? That is giving our enemy the oppor- 
tunity of poisoning and killing thousands of our people with the one bullet of an 
overdose of fluoride in our water systems. This thought disturbs me no end. 
During the last war I was an apent in the Counterintelligence Corps. One of 
our jobs was security of our military installations. In that our first concern 
was always the water tower and/or water distribution system. With fluoride 
readily available, and with the machinery set up for its entry into the water 
systems of the Nation, we would have a national seciu-ity risk far greater than 
the atom bomb. How can we be so foolish as to give our enemy such an ad- 
vantage? The overpowering of the man in charge of entering the fluoride into 
the system, the infiltration of an enenty into that .iob, or the surreptitious entry 
of an overdose of fluoride into our water would kill half of our population before 
we knew what was wrong because it cannot be detected, it has no smell and has 
no taste. 

Thirdly, putting this security aside for the moment, consider what the 
toxic effect of fluoride even in the .small amounts advocated, will have on our 
people in 10 or 20 years hence. No one knows. The tests to date do not prove 
that it will have no deleterious eft"ect. It is only in an experimental stage. 
We must positively know that it will not have a deleterious toxic effect on one 
single citizen. Unless we know this, we cannot risk it by impressing it on all 

I say, if people want it, let them go to their own dentist to get a treatment, but 
do not force it on all people for the alleged benefit of children just getting their 
second teeth. How can we ever justify these grave national risks when only a 
segment of our child population could possibly benefit and when even that 
benefit is not proven conclusively? 

Please give serious consideration to these things. Sure, you and I are both 
for progress, but certainly not at the risk of people's health and lives. 

Please support H. R. 2341 which will outlaw the use of fluoride in water for 
general use in hospitals, post offices, and military installations. 

Please vote against H. R. 7397 which would give the Surgeon General a free 
hand over the of fluoride. This could lead to national disaster. 
Respectfully yours, 

Charles C. Deubel, Jr. 

Medical Evidence Against Fluoridation op Public Water Supplies 

(By George L. Waldbott, M. D., Detroit, Mich.) 

Note. — Dr. Waldbott has published more than 100 scientific papers on 
original research on various phases of allergy, and one book entitled 
"Contact Dermatitis." Dr. Waldbott is the vice president of the Amer- 
ican College of Allergists, a Fellow of the American College of Physi- 
cians and of the American Academy of Allergists, as well as of other 
national and international societies in his specialty. 

Health and dental groups introduced the project of adding fluorides to the 
domestic water supplies because a lowered incidence of dental caries was ob- 
served in areas where fluorides occurred in the water naturally. 

May I preface my remarks by explaining why I am interested in this subject. 
As an allergist, I have seen much serious trouble in allergic patients caused 
by indiscriminate medication. Moreover, the opposition to fluoridation has thus 
far depended largely iipon nonprofessional people for leadership. In general, 
coonpetent medical men have either been too busy or have not yet given the 
problem adequate attention to oppose the powerful groups pressing fluorida- 
tion. Naturally, the view of a practicing physician like myself differs from 
that of health officers, research people and dentists. 


In this controversy two facts must be acknowledged from studying the avail- 
able literature: First, this drug has a tendency to settle in the tooth enamel 
rendering it denser, harder, and more resistant in children under the ages of 
10 to 12. However, whether this actually means healthier teeth has not been 
proven. Second, in the concentration in which fluorides are being added to 
drinking water, they are not likely to induce acute fulminating poisoning. How- 
ever, the probability of chronic poisoning will be discussed at length later. Do 
these two facts justify the -calculated risk" of which the proponents of this 
plan speak when they require every individual in the community to drink water 
containing fluorides, rather than to permit dentists to prescribe the drug when 
they consider it necessary? 

l' shall discuss the medical aspect of the fluoridation problem by elaborating 
ui)on the following points: 

1. Can there be a "safe concentration"? 

2. Is the value of fluorides scientifically proven? 

3. Is there danger of disease and death from fluoridation? 

4. What methods are being employed in some scientific circles to promote this 
program ? 

There are many political, social, and legal aspect involved in the controversy 
upon which I shall not touch. 


From animal experiments and statistical studies in humans, the proponents 
of the plan conclude that a concentration of 1 part of sodium fluoride in 1 mil- 
lion parts of drinking water by weight (1 p. p. m.) entails no harm. Accord- 
ing to dental research authorities, mottling of the tooth occurs at 0.7 p. p. m. 
and a mottled tooth is a poisoned tooth. Therefore, how can the concentration 
of 1 p. p. m. be called "safe"? 

If animals are fed diets containing 7 to 12 p. p. m. the first signs of poison- 
ing begin to appear. The incisor teeth become chalky, pitted, and corroded. 
The bones and kidneys show minor degenerative changes. 

Other findings are damage to the liver, to the stomach and bowels, and to the 
tissues surrounding bones and teeth. The animals loose their appetite, they 
may develop anemia and brain disturbances. (1.) 

When fluorides are taken into the system through ingestion by mouth, a large 
portion reacJies the bloodstream by penetrating the mucous lining of the intes- 
tinal tract. It is then distributed by the blood to bones, teeth, kidneys, liver, 
spleen, brain and other organs where about 10 percent is retained for many weeks 
or even months. (2.) The remaining 'JO percent is then eliminated from the 
blood mainly through the kidneys in the urine and through the skin in the sweat. 

Reactions in the human body differ from those in a test tube. Every single 
phase of the above metabolic process is subject to tremendous individual vari- 
ations. Blood samples, for instance, of individuals in the artifically fluoridated 
city of Newburgh showed variations of as much as 900 percent (3.) in spite of 
the attempted regulation of the "safe" 1 p. p. m. intake of fluoridated water. 

There are many reasons why this intake of 1 p. p. m. cannot be properly 
controlled and maintained in a person drinking such water. What, for example, 
about simultaneous ingestion of fluorides in food? Tea, for instance, contains 
30 to 60 p. p. m. For a habitual tea drinker, therefore, this drink would 
bring the daily intake of fluorides just within the safe limit. If, in addition, 
he were to eat food grown in a fluoridated area which contains much larger 
amounts than usual, and if this food were boiled in fluoridated water, thus concen- 
trating the fluorine content further, the intake would most likely reach toxic 
levels. Furthermore, if an individual has diabetes or a disease accompanied by 
fever his water intake could rise so much higher that this might conceivably 
decide the course of his illness. 

The amount of fluorides absorbed from the bowels is greatly influenced b.v 
the acidity of the Iwwel content. Furthermore, sodium fluoride which is added 
to the water supply is much more soluble than organic compounds containing 
fluoride present in water of naturally fluoridated areas. Therefore, much more 
will be absorbed through the bowels under the artificial scheme than in an area 
where it occurs in nature. The condition of a person's teeth, bones, kidney, 
liver, and brain — especially their calcium content — determines how much fluorine 
is retained in these organs. Thus, under certain circurstances the 10 percent 
figure of fluorine retention may be considerably exceeded. 

48391—54 IG 


The elimination of the fluoride salt through the liidneys is of special impor- 
tance for a patient with a diseased nonfunctioning kidney. ]Much less can be 
eliminated; in other words, much more is retained in his system for potential 
development of toxic symptoms. There is a great lil^elihood of extensive damage 
from this salt in elderly individuals who notably have a tendency to arterio- 
sclerotic, poorly functioning kidneys. What will happen to such individuals 
after drinking such water year after year can only be imagined. Finally, there 
are further individual differences in the event that a person is allergic. I 
should like to refer to my own experimental work published a year ago on 
"Drug Tolerance in Asthma" (4.). It was demonstrated that an asthmatic 
patient may be poisoned by otherwise harmless doses of any given drug. I am 
not referring here to allergic symptoms, but to true poisoning from otherwise 
harmless amounts of such drugs. This was observed clinically and proved 
exijerimentally. One cannot escape the conclusion that there may be consider- 
able damage to a large part of the population from artificially fluoridated water 
in the so-called safe concentration of 1 p. p. m. for everyone in an entire 


In their pamphlets the health authorities promise a 63 percent reduction in 
dental caries if fluoridation is adopted. This figure is derived from statistical 
studies in sucli fluoridated cities as Grand Eapids and Newburgh. The teeth of 
school children drinking this water were examined and the number of cavitiess 
recorded periodically. This evidence is not accepted by some leading dental 
research authorities. Hurme (5), for instance, points to the many pitfalls in 
compiling statistics of this kind, especially to the lack of standardization of 
the methods employed, to the personal bias of the examiner, and to the relatively 
short period of observation. 

Let me give an example of the confusion : IMottling of teeth is commonly found 
in fluoridated areas and is identified with beginning fluoride poisoning. (6.) 
Most proponents of fluoridation consider a mottled tooth aesthetically unde- 
sirable rather than diseased. Such a divergence of opinion is bound to affect 
the statistical appraisal of healthy teeth, and this alone renders the statistics 
inadequate. In addition, Boyd and Wessels (7.) state that repeated examina- 
tions of the same tooth made by the same examiner at different times may 
result in a different interpretation from one examination to another. 

Furthermore, children who have periodic examinations of their teeth are 
usually at the same time alerted to the importance of good dental hygiene, good 
nutrition, and elimination of sweets and soft drinks. 

Finally, most statistical reports disregard the observation of such thorough 
students of the subject as Smith and Smith (S). They found that individuals 
in fluoridated areas, who as children showed an apparent x'eduction in dental 
caries, after they had passed the age of 21 manifested much more extensive 
deterioration and weakening of the tooth structures than those in nonfluoriilated 
areas. A similar obseiwation is related by Newman (9.) in two suburbs of 
Sheffield, England. He and other observers have noted in various publications 
that people in areas where the water is practically fluorine free have excellent 
teeth. Therefore, the 63 percent reduction in caries from fluoridation of water 
is not substantiated. 


Why are there no reports of disease and deaths from fluoridated water? In 
distinction from acute poisoning, symptoms of chronic fluoride poisoning ai'e 
vague and insidious. Nausea, general malaise, joint pains, decreased blood 
clotting, anemia, and similar vague symptoms may result from a variety of 
causes and do not represent a clearcut disease syndrome. Even an exti'emely 
well-trained clinician is not likely to make the correct diagnosis. When a patient 
finally succumbs to a kidney or liver disease, it is practically impossible for the 
average physician or pathologist to trace the disease to its true cause. Health 
authorities and some dentists do not take this into count. Indeed, in two munici- 
palities of metropolitan Detroit, physicians are so little aware of this problem 
that I found hardly a single doctor who knew that he, personally, was drinking 
fluoridated water. 

Shouldn't we expect a significant rise in the death rate from kidney, liver, and 
brain diseases in fluoridated ai*eas if there is chronic intoxication from poison- 
ing? First let us consider that such diseases and death in naturally fluoridated 
areas are much less likely to occur than in artificially fluoridated ones because 


of the above-mentioned lower solubility of organic fluorides as compared to 
sodium fluoride. Furthermore, vital statistics on diseases which are difficult to 
diagnose, notoriously furnish very unreliable information. I personally observed, 
in reviewing deaths from bronchial asthma, that the majority of deaths recorded 
in death certificates represented asthmalike wheezing from other sources. Simi- 
larly, without an autopsy even the most expert clinician would find it extremely 
difficult to establish the diagnosis of fluorine poisoning. There is evidence which, 
however, cannot be fully corroborated because of insufficient published infor- 
mation that Grand Rapids deaths from kidney, heart, and brain diseases have 
increased since 1945 (10). 

The benefits derived from fluoridation have been compared with those from 
penicillin. In 1949 I reported the first death from penicillin ever reported in 
literature (11). Since that time nearly every general practitioner, certainly 
every allergist, has observed serious reactions, near deaths, and even deaths 
from this drug. I recognize the value of penicillin as much as anyone ; I use 
it extensively in my practice ; however, like other competent physicians I am 
against its indiscriminate use. Assume, for instance, that this otherwise harm- 
less drug were given every day to everyone in the country in very small doses 
for prophylactic purposes. Based on my extensive studies on human anaphy- 
laxis which were carried out in 19.">.")-36 (12). I would have to conclude that 
the results would be disastrous. Similarly, it will take many years and much 
careful and thox'ough clinical observations by competent physicians to evaluate 
the potential harm of fluorides. I predict that once the first fluorine death is 
reported, others will be recognized in rapid succession. 

I have attempted to set forth why there can be no such thing as a safe con- 
centration, why statistical evidence concerning the benefits of fluoridation is 
unreliable, and why thus far no serious illness and no fatalities from this cause 
have been reported. Whereas I have endeavored to keep this discussion on a 
factual basis, I cannot help but refer to the method used by health and dental 
authorities in promoting this program and smothering opposition. 


In practically all the voluminous literature on the subject hardly a paper is 
published which does not capitalize on the fact that there is no organized med- 
ical opposition. "No scientific point of view" (13). "Persons misled either 
by emotional prejudice or by lack of knowledge" (14) . 

In a very informative article issued by the Commission on Chronic Illness 
(15), such leaders of the profession as K. F. Maxcy, E. J. Stieglitz, and N. Shock 
present throughout the text the safety of the fiuoridation project as an incontro- 
vertible fact. In their last paragraph, however, there is the inconspicuous note 
"evidence does not absolutely exclude the possibility of risk." 

Heyroth, of the Kettering Institute (16), another stanch proponent of fluorida- 
tion, assembles all the available data on the possibility of toxicity from fluorides 
in an excellent contribution. The author sets out to convince the profession 
of the safety of fluoridation, yet at the end of the paper he makes a plea that 
evidence of toxicity in patients with chronic nephritis be sought. He recom- 
mends that such patients should buy nonfluoridated water if residing in a fluori- 
dated community. He disregards the well-known fact that many patients are 
ignorant of suffering from this disease. 

Practically all publications convey the impression to the reader that dental 
caries are primarily the result of lack of fluorides. Even if lack of fluorides 
in food and water were to play a part in the production of caries, the fact 
remains that such other causes as dietary digressions, lack of vitamins, gland- 
ular deficiencies, allergies, and many other factors are equally, if not much more, 

In an attempt to prove the harmlessness of fluoridation, many of the articles 
claim that fluorine is a trace element necessary to good human nutrition similar 
in action to iron in forming red blood corpuscles and to iodides in counteracting 
goiter. This is contradicted by numerous sources (IT). 

None of the papers mention the excellent work by Taylor (IS) who fed fluorides 
to a large number of mice in the so-called safe concentration. They developed 
cancer much sooner than the control group which was fed a fluorine-free diet. 
Also ignored is the woi-k of Harris (19) wliich proved that hamsters fed corn 
and milk from Texas developed only half as much dental caries as those fed 
corn and milk from New England. His work clearly indicates that not lack 
of fluorides but vitamins were involved in the reduction of dental caries. 


All this data indicates that most of the evidence presented by the proponents of 
fluoridation on the question of safe concentration, possible danger and on its 
value in preventing tooth decay is not convincing. 

Why is tliere so little medical opposition to fluoridation? Fn-om personal con- 
tact with competent physicians and dentists, I know that there is a strong 
potential opposition. These never, however, wonder why scientific medical 
organizations officially endorse the program. I am told by a member of the 
house of delegates to the AMA who attended the meeting at which the principle 
of fluoridation was endorsed by tliis body that he personally was not informed 
snfBciently in advance to carefully appraise its drawbacks. He states that the 
vote was taken so precipitously that there was little chance to oppose it. 
Further you know that "the councils on pharmacy and chemistry of the AMA 
purposely refrained from making any recommendation that communities support 
or oppose projects for the fluoridation of water supplies." "The house of dele- 
gates did not urge or recommend that any communities undertake to fluoridate 
their water supplies." (Quotation from the statement of the AMA.) 

Other physicians are overwhelmed by the vast repetitious information pre- 
senting the proponent aspect and puzzled by the absence of opposition. For in- 
stance, at present every member of the American Academy of Pediatrics is 
receiving a propaganda pamphlet — not a scientific paper — advocating fluorida- 
tion. This is likely to result in another endorsement of a scientific group. Fur- 
thermore, they cannot find literature against fluoridation in competent medical 
and dental journals. It is evident that conventional dental publications do not 
accept scientific material representing the other side. For such information 
one is obliged to search in second-rate journals. Moreover, doctors scientifically 
qualified, hesitate to oppose the project lest they jeopardize their standing among 
colleagues, their practice, and their medical appointments. They do not want 
to be identified with those who oppose the project on religious, political, and 
emotional grounds. 

Let me conclude by reminding you of what happened in the early twenties. A 
drug much less harmful than sodium fluoride, namely, sodium iodide, was added 
to the public drinking water of some Michigan communities for the i^revention 
of goitei-. McClure and coworkers (20) soon noted a marked increase in the 
incidence of mortality from toxic goiter among those disposed to it. Immedi- 
ately the health aiithorities who had promoted this scheme made iodine 
available in table salt instead. Now, anyone can partake of it or not according 
to his need. 

Why do we not follow this example? Fuorides are now available to be taken 
as a tablet in water or milk, or they can be painted on the teeth of those who 
wish to avail themselves of their benefits. At present, neither the benefit nor 
the safety of fluoridation of water supplies are sufficiently proven to warrant 
experimentation with human life. 


1. Review bv Rapp. G. W.. the Pharmacolog>- of Fuoride, The Bur, April 

2. Smith, F. A., et al.. Journal of Dental Research, 29 : 596-000. 1950. 

3. Brandl, J., and Tappenier, H. : Zyschr f. Biol 28 : 518, 1891-92. 

4. Waldbott, G. L., Drug Tolerance in Asthma, Ann. of All. 11 : 199-203, 1953. 

5. Hurme, V. O., Forsythe Dental Infirmary for Children, Boston, Mass., 
Dental Items of Interest, June 1952. 

6. Smith, M. C, Arizona Experimental Station Technical Bulletin, No. 329, 
August 1938. 

7. Bovd, J. D., and Wessels, W. E., American Journal of Public Health 
(41:976-985, August 1951). 

8. Smith, H. Y., and Smith, M. C, Arizona Experimental Station Technical 
Bulletin No. 43, 1932. 

9. Newman, H. H., New York State Journal of Medicine, 51 : 1749-1752, July 

10. Miller, A. L., Congressional Record, March 24, 1952, A1899-A1904. 

11. Waldbott, G. L., Journal, AMA, 139 : 526, 1946. 

12. Various publications on human anaphylaxis published by the author in 
Journal, AMA, American Journal Diseases of Children, Journal of Allergy. 

13. Wertheimer, F., Journal Michigan State Dental Association, 36 : 131-135, 
May 1954. 


14. Kuutson, J. W., New England Journal of Medicine, 246-737-743, May 

ir». Chronic Illness New Letter, volume 5, No. 4, April 1954. 

1(5. Hevroth, F. F., Americnn Journal Public Health, 42 : 1568-65, 1952. 

17. (a) Food and Drug (Dental Digest, New Jersey, F. D. C, 3381-3383), 
August 1951. 

(h) McCoUuiu, E. v., et al., the Newer Knowledge of Nutrition, MacMillan 
Co.. 1938. 

18. Taylor, A., Dental Digest. April 1954. 

19. Tarris, li. S., quoted by McCormick, W. J., Arch, of Ped., April 1953. 

20. McClure, R., et al. 

Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, Inc., 

Neto York, N. Y., May 24, 195.'t. 
Hon. Charles A. Wolveeton, 

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
Congress of the United States, Washington, D. C. 

Honorable Sir: We thank you for your letter advising of the hearings on 
H, R. 2341, known as the Wier bill, beginning Tuesday, May 25, and running 
through Thursday, May 27. 

While other commitments will not permit of us attending on such short notice 
we wish to go on record as approving the AVier bill. It is a positive effort to 
assure the medical freedom of the people of this Republic, which is being seriously 
threatened on every side by the proponents of fluoridation. 

The Wier bill is an absolute necessity in the face of the elastic law of the Pure 
Food and Drug Administration, which permits of too much freedom in the 
application of the law within the discretion of the administrators. It is this 
weakness in the law which is being invoked by municipalities, which have forced 
flluoridation upon communities without benefit of the ballot : 

"The Pure Food and Drug Administration has accepted the findings of the 
United States Public Health, that 1 part per million of fluoride added to the 
drinking water is harmless." 

Those who have done the most research with fluoride, among them Drs. Leo 
Spira, of New Ydrk : V. C. Exner. of Seattle, Wash., and Dillon, of Scotland, 
hold a diametrically oppositive view. 

The fluoridation of the potable water supply is to say the least, a contro- 
versial issue, as any physician or dentist who has taken the time to review the 
available literature on the subject will be obliged to admit. 

Fluoridation nf the public water supply is strictly individual treatment 
in mass operation: it is iirescribing medicine without benefit of diagnosis or 
individualization of dosage ; it is a treatment and not a sanitary or hygenic 
measure ; it can no more l)e condoned than would be the medication of bread or 
butter to prevent a disorder of the physical organism. 

There is ample provision in medicine to satisfy the mothers and fathers of 
children who wish to have the teeth of their offspring treated with fluorine with- 
out placing the health of the entire population in possible jeopardy or to compel 
them to accept medical treatment without desire or consent. 

Fluoridation is unquestionably mass medication in its most vicious form — 
that of compulsion : further, it is a direct step in the socialization of medicine. 

As a national organization representing the voice of 70 million people who 
revere medical freedom as guaranteed to the people of the Republic, we wish 
to go on record as approving the bill H. R. 2341, known as the Wier bill, designed 
to forbid by Federal statute the fluoridation of the potable water supplies of the 

Our background of 35 years' experience in dealing with the problem of com- 
pulsory medical legislation in the interest of preserving medical freedom, we 
believe, qualifies us in matters of this kind. 

We submit that in all or long experience nothing as directly compulsory 
involving the whole Nation has come to our attention, and considering the great 
power that is being brought to bear by the United States Public Health Service, 
the passage of the Wier bill, is indeed urgent. 

We, in the name of medical freedom and liberty plead that the Wier bill be 
passed, and ask that our wholehearted approval go on record. 

Respectfully submitted. 




Washington, D. C, May 27, 195',. 
Re H. R. 2341, Antifluoridation. 

Hon. Charles A. Wolverton, 

Chairman, Committee on Inter' state and Foreign Commerce, 
House Office Building, Wasliington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : We, the people, do not want fluoridation in our drinking water. I do 
not talie medical drugs of any kind, and I do not want sodiumfluoride — rat 
poison — in my drinking water. They are putting it in the water, to make profits 
for the huge aluminum trust, the medical trust, the chemical or drug trust, and 
the equipment makers. 

From the Congressional Record of March 24. 1952 : "A clieck of vital statistics 
of Grand Rapids, Mich., which is the only city of size that has had artificial 
fluoridation for more than 4 years, shows that the death rate has increased 50 
percent in this time ; from heart trouble, 50 percent ; kidney trouble, 50 percent ; 
and brain lesions, 50 percent." 

We only drink 5 percent of the city's water supply and the other 95 percent 
of fluorine is washed down the sewer. Why should we have to pay the heavy 
expense of wasting fluorine in the city water and make ourselves sick by drinking 
the poison? 

In Dr. Dean's report on May 27, 1954, for the American Dental Association, 
they say that when a tooth decays, it is never repaired again by nature, and that 
fluorine merely keeps the tooth from decaying more. 

If a tooth never repairs the decay in a tooth under a medical dentist, it is 
because the dentist knows nothing about nature-cure methods. Mr. Howard V. 
Inches, a nature-cure health lecturer, had the enamel blown off his front teeth, 
by a buz-bomb explosion in World War II, he said, and he has now grown the 
enamel back onto his teeth. 

A lady told me she took the enamel off her teeth by using a highly advertised 
toothpaste, and that she grew the enamel back on through correct diet — nature- 
cure diet. The medical doctors don't know anything about natural diet and don't 
want to know. There is no money in keeping people well, it seems. 

If people can't get fluorine taken out of the water, they certainly can move 
back onto the farms and be safe for awhile, and in the meantime they can vote 
out the people who advocate it. I don't think the big property holders would 
like that, because the price of real estate will go down when people leave 
the cities. 

Fluorine is injurious to people, and we are not going to have it in our water, 
even if we have to vote the people out who advocate it. 
Sincerely yours, 

Anna M. Ferguson. 

A Comparative Study of Dentistry in Natural Fluoridation and 


Data taken from A. D. A. Directory 1947 


Baltimore, Md., with a population of 859,100, had a registration list of 510 
dentists. Approximate service, 1 dentist to every 1,684 people. 

Out of 510 dentists are listed the men performing specialized work. 

1. Oral surgery, 13; 2. Orthodontia, 11 — (deformity) ; 3. Denture work, 10; 
4. Children, 3. 


Houston, Tex., with a population of only 384,514, had a registration list of 285 
dentists. Approximate service, 1 dentist to every 1,350 people. 

Out of 285 dentists are listed the men performing specialized work. 

1. Oral surgery, 12; 2. Orthodontia, 20 — (deformity); 3. Denture work, 8; 
4. Children, 2. 

These figures and facts prove the detrimental influence of the fluoridation 

Take Colorado Springs, Colo., with 75 years of background, published in May 
A. D. A. Bulletin of Information, with the population of 37,789 with 46 dentists ; 
ratio approximately 1 to 800 people. Hereford, Tex., with population 2,584 


with 3 dentists; ratio approximately 1 to 8(X) people. Bethesda, Md., nonfluori- 
dation area, population 30,0OU with 13 dentists ; ratio approximately 1 to 1,684 


Is the dental profession interested in saving children's teeth? If so, why 
does A. D. A. reiwrt in the two cities of Baltimore, Md., with 510 dentists, and 
Houston, Tex., with 285 dentists, a total of 795 dentists with only 5 dentists 
specializing on children's teeth? Total population of these 2 cities 1,243,614. 
A. D. A.-A. M. A. fluori(hition fantasy is not the answer. Poison never made 
a normal, healthy cell and never will. Codliver oil, calcium medication, exer- 
cise, fresh air, sunlight and pure water reach into all the haunts of life and 
impart that touch of nature, when oheyed, furnishes the open sesame to the 
miracle of life. 

Geokge J. Brett, D. D. S., 

Lancaster, Pu. 

Fluoridatiox — Friend or Enemy — Statement in Support of H. R. 2341 Pre- 
sented BY Anthony J. Romeo, President of the New York Statewide 
Committee of the Pure Water Association of America 

This age of modern living has set up such a terrific pace, we could conceivably 
lose our balance in the mad rush to keep up with the world. New ideas and 
schemes pop up with such fi-equency, we hardly have time to understand them 
all. Consequently, the people of our country could quite possibly commit suicide 
by taking a very passive attitude when they should demand complete education 
on new developments. This is especially true in cases where the economical 
structure of our country or the health of the i>eople is concerned. 

Fluoridation is probably one of the greater puzzles of this modern age. Much 
has been said about it, and it is surprising how many people have accepted it 
as just another step toward easier living, without ever questioning the ultimate 
benefits or the dangers. Unfortunately, some of our professional men in high 
places have lent their titles and names to the scheme without, in many cases, 
making a thorough study of the proposal. Dr. A. L. Miller, Representative from 
Nebraska, who took pait in the congressional hearing on fluoridation in 1952 
feels that most of the proponents of the plan have done little if any research 
on their own and that they are merely parroting one auothers' opinions. 

I have found this to be true. Hundreds of people I have talked to seem for 
the most part to fit into one pattern. If they are for it, they are poorly Informed 
or misinformed. They seem to feel that the doctor so and so is a man of integrity 
and could not be wrong. They do not stop to consider that possibly doctor so and 
so has been misinformed or as Dr. F. B. Exner has suggested, possibly certain 
dentists are being pressured into carrying the ball for the fiuoridators. On the 
other hand, I find that those who are well informed on the matter are for the 
most part against the practice completely or want more time for sufficient study 
on the matter. 

In a recent broadcast, one of our top columnists suggested that the 99 percent 
assurance of safety for the new polio serum wasn't good enough. Yet a lot of 
people who should know better accept fluoridation wholeheartedly when the 
percentage of safety leans considerably toward the danger mark. 

Fluorine itself is an inorganic corrosive ; a cumulative poison that could hardly 
be accepted as an inoffensive element when it is admitted that even a sound and 
healthy kidney can only dissipate 90 percent of the effect at its best. What will 
happen to those with ailing kidneys, such as people who suffer from uremic poison 
for example? 

We concede that certain tests are being conducted in Newburgh and Kingston, 
N. Y. We are not satisfied, however, that these tests will be conclusive. First 
of all, we understand these tests are supervised by proponents of fluoridation ; 
secondly, we hear that statistics coming out of Newburgh are not telling the 
whole unvarnished truth of the matter. 

Let us consider, for instance, the statistics given us by the observers at New- 
burgh. It is claimed that there has been a greater reduction in tooth decay 
among the children in Newburgh than in the control city of Kingston. However, 
in the overall picture, the total defects in children of school age are 100 percent 
greater in Newburgh than in the control city, according to the 1952 statistics 
of the Department of Education. Why? Could it be that although tooth decay 


is reduced — other defects are induced? Only an honest study can give lis the 
answer. One of tlie greatest faults the promoters of fluoridation have is they 
want to be heard, but refuse in a great number of cases to allow the opposition 
to present its side. This is, of course, a deplorable situation. If, as the promoters 
would have us believe, fluoridation is beyond reproach, why then deny the other 
side the privilege of at least asking questions? 

We believe that the only way to resolve a question is to have both sides present 
their cases. Only with all the facts can we be certain of the success of a propo- 
sition. The newspapers have in many cases been taken in by the peddlers of 
fluorine. This, we can say with conviction, is part of a plan set up at the fourth 
annual conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and 
the Children's Bureau, held in the Federal Security Building. Washington, D. C, 
June 6-8, 1951. The Parent-Teachers Association was also included in this plan 
along with anyone of importance that could be hoodwinked into taking up the 
battle cry for fluoridation. 

Many communities have been allowed a vote on the subject of whether or not 
to fluoridate their community. In many cases, success for fluoridation comes 
only when the public had been given but one side of the proposal. Many com- 
munities are not even consulted. The city administration puts it in after advice 
or harping by pressure groups. 

The general feeling of the opponents of fluoridation seems to be that all has 
not been told or learned about the plan. That not enough time has elapsed for 
study. That it is unconstitutional to force medication upon 100 percent of the 
population to partially benefit a very small percentage. That the profluorida- 
tors have not told the whole story honestly and truthfully. That they have led 
people to believe artifically produced inorganic sodium fluoride is exactly the 
same as calcium fluoride as found in its natural state in foods and water supplies. 
The protesters of mass participation also hold the conviction that the promoters 
are claiming as facts, much data that has long been proven false. 

Fluoridation is no different than chlorination, vaccination, or pasteurization is 
a claim often held by the advocates of fluoridation. This is without question a very 
misleading statement. First of all, you do not have to partake of pasteurized 
milk. You can, however, do so by choice. Vaccination is a method of prevent- 
ing a communicable disease as is chlorination. Tooth decay is not a communi- 
cable disease and nothing can be gained by fluoridation that cannot be gained 
much more effectively by at least 10 other methods. These methods are direct 
treatments for those who desire them without forcing aged and infirm people to 
ingest a poison that cannot possibly help them, but can very readily hurt them. 

An amazing fact that disturbs us is why so many dentists and doctors are for 
fluoridation while equally qualified medical men are against it. It is incon- 
ceivable that both are right. Our explanation is as stated previously. Those 
for it, do not have all the facts or are being pushed into it. Those who liave made 
a study of it are definitely opposed to the whole proposition. 

Many of us are beginning to look at the human race (and I use the term 
loosely in the light of recent events) and wonder if it realizes exactly in what 
direction it is headed. 

Wlien a newspaper or radio station gives free time to proponents but refuses 
any time whatsoever to the opponents, then America had better look to its 
future with much concern. 

The emphasis on children is tremendous. No one is adverse to our children 
liaving things somewhat better than their forefathers. But is it necessary to say 
to them "All right son. jon can eat all the candy you want now, we have fluorine 
in our drinking water"? Have we coddled our children to the extent that we are 
willing to shorten the life of our neighbor so that they can have an extra 
candy bar? 

I would like to ask the promoters this question : Would any one of you fluorida- 
lors bare your arm and allow me, a local barber, to inject into your arm a shot of 
penicillin, not just one of you but all of you? Reason? There is a little child 
up the street. Avho is on the verge of pneumonia and needs a sliot of that drug. 
You'll say. "Why should I take it just because some kid has pneumonia?" Well, 
aren't you asking us to take fluorine because a kid does not want to brush his 
teeth? "But," tlien, you say, "you are not a doctor to go around medicating 
people." The answer is, neither is the man who doctors our water supply with 
a poison. 

Gentlemen, I am going to draw a little parallel here if I may. We have laws 
that prevent us from killing or even harming the birds of the air. We protect 


likewise by law the animals in the forests. They cannot be slain out of season, or 
at all in many instances. But if a human being is killed in the woods, we call it 
an imhappy accident and very seldom punish the slayer with even the loss of his 
license. Awhile ago many good Americans made themselves heard way to 
Washin.gton when they protested the use of cats and dogs and other potential 
pets as victims in medical experiments. We send to jail anyone who dares to 
pollute the streams with anything that may destroy the tish therein. The Society 
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vigorously brings to task anyone who 
dai-es abuse an animal. Gentlemen, would it be asking too much if we beg of you 
to treat us at least as the equal of animals of the air and the forests and the 
dumb brutes of the farmyard V 

A warning was senr out from the Department of Agriculture to farmers, con- 
cerning the dangers of using tluorine on bmod sows. Still, who in this great 
(Tovernment of ours has sent our an alarm that i)ossihly expectant mothers are 
in great danger from the same poison? A few years ago we were hard pressed 
to find potatoes that were not half rotted (tr scabby or both. I chanced to call 
on a farmer friend of mine. I found him cutting up some of the most beautiful 
potatoes I had ever seen. "Sell me some.'" I implored. "Do you want me to go 
to jail'.'"' he answered. "These iMitatoes are a cent-a-bag potatoes from the 
Government, and I don"t dare take one into my own house to eat. They are for 
the pigs." I couldn't help nmsing, "Great country we've got. The pigs eat 
better than we do." 

I've been told that it is corny to talk patriotism. We have been told not to 
use the slightest emotion when a])pearing before this committee. Gentlemen, I 
tell you this: Perhaps the fluoridators can stand before you begging to be allowed 
to proceed with a coldhearted commercial proposition, hut we who spend our own 
money and time and effort (and some of us can ill afford to) speak to you and 
implore you to stay the hand of the poisoner and we cannot help displaying the 
emotion we feel in our hearts. Who can love or sing or watch a ball game with- 
out emotion'^ Can you truthfully say you could face a loaded weapon without 
emotion '? 

My friends, I onl.v wish you had the great privilege that I have had here in 
Washington the last few days. I wish you could be near to these good peoii!e 
who came from the far corners of this great country of ours to protect it. They 
are men and women with determination and hearts that beat with the tempo 
of the marching feet of the soldier who is willing to sacrifice his all that this 
coimtry may survive. I don't see doctors, dentists, scientists, housewives and 
such in this group. No, gentlemen, I see the little group huddled together at 
Valley Forge who so valiantly stood up under terrific hardship and fantastic 
odds to shield the neighbor they loved. 

On the benches here I don't see Mr. Smith, Representative Brown, or Con- 
gressman Jones. I see great leaders and fearless statesmen of old, who had 
the courage of their convictions and feared not to speak with truth regardless 
of the outcome. You are the people in whom we place our faith. Please don't 
let us down. Today we are either surrendering or being relieved of our hard- 
earned liberties, one at a time, day by day, year by year, until the democracy we 
paid so dearly for will have completely disappeared to high government. This 
fluoridation is just another method of taking away another liberty. That is 
why we are fighting, my friends, because we feel that a liberty that is not worth 
fighting for is not worth having. Please, sirs, we implore you, don't take away 
these liberties. Give them back to the people who gained them. Please, gentle- 
men, give us back our country. 

San Francisco, Calif., Mai/ 5, 195S. 
Re Mrs. FriPda Zwerling v. Cify Water Fluoridation 
San Francisco Health Service, 

City Hall, San Francisco, Calif. 
(Attention: Water Department.) 
Gentlemen: In January lO.'iS Mrs. Frieda Zwerling, 1865 Oak Street, San 
Francisco, came to my office with a very distressing dermatitis of the whole body, 
a badly cracked and swollen tongue, painfully inflamed inner cheeks, and deep 
cracks at either corner of the mouth. 


The source of this very painful condition was not determined at the moment. 
When remedies prescribed failed to relieve, she discontinued drinking the city- 
water and in a few days the mouth conditions were healed. 

The natural conclusion was that perhaps discontinuing bathing in the city 
water might relieve the general dermatitis. This proved to be true with the 
exception of slight irritation which entirely disappeared when her garments 
were not washed in the city water. 

You can imagine the plight of this woman as she is deprived entirely of the 
use of city water, and small wonder that she objects to drinking of the poison 
that she finds in insect and rat poisons. 

The patient also informs me that she finds a great many of our citizens in a 
similar plight, which is to be deplored. 
Very truly yours, 

A. R. Gould, M. D. 

P. S. — A brief personal report : I live in Los Altos, spend 4 days a week in my 
office in this city and find the frequent washing of my hands in the city water 
has for some time brought about a dermatitis which is also deplorable. 

Rogers Park, Anchorage, Alaska, 

April 19, 1954. 
Re H. R. 2341. 

Hon. Charles A. Wolverton (Chairman) and Members, 
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 
House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen : A careful 3 months' study of all phases of fluoridation, particu- 
larly testimony in hearings before the Delaney committee, conference proceed- 
ings. State dental directors with the Public Health Service, Washington, D. C, 
June 1951, and correspondence with citizens" groups in many states, including 
Scotland, convinces us fluoridation was never intended for the public welfare. 

We find a premeditated, concerted, determined policy of deceit, evasion, con- 
cealment of facts, and coercion being used by fluoridation proponents, with 
spirit of contempt for democratic government, congressional action, constitu- 
tional law, and flagrant disregard for individual and public rights and welfare. 

We beseech, therefore, that Federal legislation be enacted to prohibit fluori- 
dation of public water supplies ; further, that complete investigation be made 
into the policies and people responsible for this federally initiated and feder- 
ally promoted fluoridation program, including executive personnel of the United 
States Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
American Dental Association, and any and all other persons or organizations, 
w^ho, knowing all facts, continue to pressure communities to fluoridate without 
revealing those facts. 

It is also respectfully asked that such investigation be carried through to 
full, just prosecution of all guilty of this unprecedented violation of the public 
trust, rights, and welfare, and maluse of public funds ; further, that careful 
scrutiny of public relations policies governing the United States Public Health 
Service and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be made, and action 
taken to restore such policies to guidance of moral, constitutional, ethical 

Scores of citizens here join in this request, many of whom, by reason of their 
po.sitions and responsibilities, are giving their utmost for the public protec- 
tion, health, and security in this area. 

Thank you for your earnest consideration of the rights, health, welfare, and 
security of Alaskan citizens as well as all under the American flag. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Mrs. Robert H. Crane. 

The Chairman. The first witness on behalf of the opponents this 
afternoon will be the representatives of the American Dental Associa- 
tion. I would be very glad if those who are present representing that 
association will indicate the order of their witnesses. 



Mr. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, my name is Francis J. Garvey, of Chi- 
cago, IlL; I am secretary of the council on legislation of the American 
Dental Association. 

I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that 
there have been 8 cases decided with respect to w^ater fluoridation, 
iind in 7 of them it was held within the police power of the State. If 
the committee would desire, I should be glad to file a copy of them for 
the record, or otherwise we will ignore it. 

The Chairman. I think it would be helpful if w^e might have them. 
Mr. Heseltox. What are those cases ? 

Mr. Gar^tcy. Kraus v. City of Cleveland (116 N. E. 2d, 779) . These 
are all nisi pri United States cases, except one. 

The Chairman. Suppose you give the statement for the record. 
Mr. Hale. Suppose you give the States in wdiich the cases w-ere 

]Mr. Garvey. Ohio was the first State. The statement here does 
not have the State on it. 

De Aryan v. Butler ((Calif.) 260 Pac. 2d, 98 (certiorari denied by 
the Supreme Court of California) ) . 

That was a case that was heard in an intermediate appellate court 
of California, and it is now, I believe, on appeal to the United States 
Supreme Court, and it has not been decided. 

Kaul against City of Chehalis, Wash., now on appeal, No. 323707 
to the Supreme Court of Washington. 

]VIcFarlane against Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, decided 
in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. 

McGurren against City of Fargo, N. Dak., No. 7368, on appeal to 
the Supreme Court of North Dakota. 

DoAvell against City of Tulsa, Okla., No. 36,068, now on appeal to 
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 

In each of those cases the district judge decided it was within the 
police power of the State, under the prevailing laws of the State, to 
fluorinate water in the interest of the public health. 

The one adverse decision is the one to which reference has been 
made. Chapman against The City of Shreveport, which is now on 
appeal by the proponents of fluoridation to the Supreme Court of 

Gentlemen, I w^ill take no more of your time, but would like to 
introduce to you Dr. E. Harold Gale, chairman of the council on 
legislation of the American Dental Association. 

Mr. Heselton. May I ask you what the booklet you have is? 
INIr. Garv-ey. This is the appeals brief to the Supreme Court of 
Louisiana. If you would be interested in it, I would be glad to make 
a present of it to the committee. 
Mr. Heselton. I think we would be glad to have it. 
(Two of the documents referred to above were submitted for the 
record and are as follows :) 


Filed November 12. 1952 



H. Clifton Owens and Louis E. Bowen for plaintiffs 

Thomas N. Biddison, city solicitor ; Edwin Harlan, deputy city solicitor ; and 
F. Clifford Hane, assistant city solicitor, for defendants 

MiTNiciPAL Corporation — Fli'oridation of City Water Supply 

Complainants filed a bill of complaint to restrain the mayor and city council 
of Baltimore, the commissioner of health, and the water engineer from proceed- 
ing with the proposed plan for the fluoridation of the Baltimore City water sup- 
ply. Held that the evidence discloses that the ingestion of fluorine in the city 
water in the limited qiiantity proposed would not be deleterious to the health 
of the people of Baltimore City, and is not a calculated risk of any kind. 

One of the complainants challenged the constitutionality of the proposed pro- 
gram on the ground that the introduction of fluorine into the water would com- 
pel him to violate one of the basic principles of his religion in that it would 
force him to use medication. Held that none of the constitutional rights of the 
plaintiff, Hoffman, to freedom of religious belief would be invaded or violated 
by the adoption of the proposed program. 

The mayor and city council of Baltimore has the authority under the city 
charter to authorize the commissioner of health and the water engineer to carry 
into effect the fluoridation of the city water supply as a health measure for 
the prevention of partial decay of teeth. 

Manixy, J. (orally) : 

The purpose of the bill of complaint which was filed in this case was to obtain; 
a temporary restraining injunction prohibiting the defendants, the mayor and 
city council of Baltimore, Dr. Huntington Williams, the commissioner of healthy 
and Mr. Joseph S. Strohmeyer, water engineer of Baltimore City, from introduc- 
ing fluorine into the water supply of Baltimore City until a hearing has been 
had in this matter, and to permanently restrain the defendants from intro- 
ducing fluorine into the water supply of Baltimore City. The bill of complaint 
was filed by two complainants. One of the plaintiffs, Mr. McFarlane, not only 
did not testify in the case, but he did not, as far as I know, make his appearance 
in the courtroom. At least I have not seen him in the courtroom during the 
several days that testimony has been taken, and no explanation has been given 
for his absence. 

In the bill of complaint the plaintiffs allege that fluorine is a toxic substance 
and its effect on the health of the people of Baltimore City is likely to be dele- 
terious, especially in the case of aged people and people having certain organic 
weaknesses. It is also alleged that the addition of fluorine to the water supply 
of Baltimore City is a calculated risk, and that there are many important aspects 
of such an adventure that have not been fully explored scientifically. 

The preponderance of the evidence shows that fluorine ingested into the water 
supply of Baltimore City in t'.ie proportion or amount that is contemplated to 
be used is not toxic. The evidence also is that its effect on the health of the 
people of Baltimore City will not be deleterious even in the case of aged people 
or people having certain organic weaknesses. The evidence also shows that this 
pro.1ect is not a calculated risk, and that it would be safe at this time as a result 
of the experiments that have already been made that the fluoridation of the 
water be immediately undertaken. 

Dr. Williams testified that there is no substantial disagreement among com- 
petent scientists that the proposed fluoridation of Baltimore's water supply will 
have any effect at all of a deleterious nature on aging people or on people of 
any age group. It also appears from the report on Fluoridation of Water Sup- 
plies of the National Research Council, published November 29, 1951, and which 
report was offered in evidence, that : 

"In the accumulated experience there is no evidence that the prolonged in- 
gestion of drinking water with a mean concentration of fluorides below the level 
causing mottled enamel would have adverse physiological effects." 


The chairman of the National Research Council Committee on this matter ^vas 
Dr. Kennedy F. Maxcy, professor of epidemiology, Dr. A. McGehee Harvey, pro- 
fessor of medicine, and Dr. Abel Wolman, professor of sanitary engineering, 
were members of the committee. These gentlemen are at Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity. Among the other members were representatives of the United States 
Public Health Service, the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and 
the University of Minnesota School of Pul)lic Health. 

Dr. Williams further testified to the effect that any claims made that fluoride 
in the minute amounts to be added to the city's water supply, namely, one part per 
million, would be harmful to persons suffering from rheumatism and arthritis 
nre not correct and cannot be scientifically confirmed. He further testified that 
uo bodily defects attributable to waterborne fluorine below the eight parts per 
million level have ever been corroborated and that careful physical and dental 
examination of Newburgh (Newburgh, N. Y., study) children exposed to fluori- 
dation of their water supply for G years disclosed no ill effects in the eyes, ears, 
bones, or teeth or vital organs, and further, that the Baltimore City Health De- 
partment has been studying the matter of the fluoridation of the t-ity water supply 
since the first request to do so was received from Mayor D'Alesandro during the 
jnonth of August lU.jO. 

In November 19.')0, the Baltimore City Dental Society approved the fluorida- 
tion of the Baltimore City water supply. In November IQ^, the Medical 
and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland, which is the State medical society, placed 
itself on record as approving the fluoridation of the Baltimore City water supply. 
In 10.51 the Maryland State Board of Health after due consideration approved 
the addition of fluoride to the city water supply of Hagerstown, and on De- 
cember 20. 1951, approved the same procedure for Baltimore City. 

Dr. Maurice E. Pincoft's, professor of medicine at the University of Mary- 
land, who serves with the Commissioner of Health of Baltimore City, and who 
is a member of the Maryland State Board of Health, personally approved the 
fluoridation of the Baltimore City water supply, and he testified it would be 
a safe and important procedure for the partial preventicm of dental decay in 

There is testimony that in many Maryland connnunities there is naturally 
more than one part per million of fluoride in the normal drinking water, and 
that there is no evidence that there has been any harmful eff'ect from long con- 
tinued drinking of these natural waters in those various communities. 

The purpose of adding fluoride to the city water supply, it has been testified, 
is to prevent needless tooth decay and suffering for thousands of Baltimore chil- 
dren in the future and for better adult health as the years go by. From the 
l>est available evidence the Commissioner of Health of Baltimore City testified 
that well over 95 percent of the soundest scientific thought in the United 
States is in favor of the view that there is no danger in adjusting a city water 
supply to one part per million of fluoride, and that further if this procedure is 
adopted that roughly two-thirds of all the dental decay in children as the years 
go by will be eliminated. 

The testimony of Dr. Williams has l)een supported l3y many scientists, in- 
cluding medical and dental authorities not only from this State but from other 
States in the country, who have come here to testify as to their knowledge of the 
situatitm, and they all join in the approval of the plan. Dr. Williams, our own 
commissioner of health, is a very competent, capable, and honest puiflic official. 
He has recommended this fluoridation of the water to the city council and the 
mayor. They have accepted this recommendation, and I see no reason why 
the court should not also do so. We must rely on scientists and doctors and 
dentists in technical affairs of this kind, and when we have an honest opinion 
given after a careful study I think it is entitled to great weight and should be 
adopted, so I find from the evidence that there is nothing in this proposed pro- 
gram that would be deleterious to the health of the people of Baltimore City, and 
I do not find from the evidence that the addition of fluorine to the water supply 
is a calculated risk of any kind. 

The objection is also made by Harry C. Hoffman, one of the complainants, 
that the introduction of fluorine into the water supply would be an infringement 
of his constitutional rights, he being a Christian Scientist, alleging that the intro- 
duction of fluorine into the water supply of Baltimore city will compel him to 
violate one of the basic principles of his religion. A letter was introduced in 
evidence from the committee on publication of the Christian Science publications 
for Maryland in which it is stated that : 


"Adherents of Christian Science regard medication and medical examination 
of all sorts as methods of indoctrination which operate to teach them to look ta 
the physical body for health, whereas Christian Science teaches that health 
comes from God and true prayer makes that fact evident." 

The argument is made that to require him to use city water after it has been 
ingested with fluoride, which it is claimed is a drug, would require him to submit 
to something which is against the tenets of his religion. However, the question 
as to whether this is medication is a debatable one, because in the opinion of 
Dr. Pincofts he would not consider this as being medication, so that irrespective 
of the merits of the contention of Mr. Hoffman on broad constitutional lines, as 
a question of fact it is debatable as to whether or not the use by him of this water 
after fluoride has been put into it would be a violation by him of the tenets of 
his religion. It has been shown in the evidence that in other large cities the 
water has been treated exactly the same as it is proposed by the water engineer 
and the commissioner of health to treat the water in the city of Baltimore. 

In the case of Aryan v. Butler, Mayor of San Diego, California, et al., in the 
Superior Court for San Diego County, Calif., (No. 169974, decided April 3, 
1952), the identical question involved here was presented to that court for de- 
cision by a member of the Christian Science faith who opposed the fluoridation 
of the water in San Diego. The court, in a memorandum opinion on motion for 
nonsuit, stated : 

"Religious freedom embraces two concepts, freedom of belief and freedom 
to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things the second cannot be, 
in that all acts or conduct of our citizens must conform to all reasonable regula- 
tions adopted by the respective governmental agencies acting within the scope 
of their authority." 

And in that connection, the court quoted from an opinion of the State Supreme 
Court of California. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court (28 Cal. 2d) 460, 470), 
as follows : 

"There can be no question, therefore, that a person is free to hold whatever 
belief his conscience dictates, but when he translates his belief into action he may 
be required to conform to reasonable regulations which are applicable to all 
persons and are designed to accomplish a permissible objective." 

It was held in the Aryan v. Butler case that no constitutional rights of any of 
the citizens of San Diego would be invaded or violated by the adoption of the 
proposed program. 

In a case decided by the New York Court of Appeals (176 N. Y. 201) , which was 
a prosecution for failure to provide medical attention for the accused's female 
minor child, the defense was made that it was contrary to the tenets of the 
religion of the accused to provide or call on medical services for relief from 
physical disease, but in that case the court of appeals held : 

"We are aware that there are people who believe that the divine power may 
be invoked to heal the sick, and that faith is all that is required. There are 
others who believe that the Creator has supplied the earth, nature's storehouse, 
with everything that man may want for his support and maintenance, including 
the restoration and preservation of his health, and that he is left to work out his 
own salvation under fixed natural laws. There are still others who believe that 
Christianity and science go hand in hand, both proceeding from the Creator ; 
that science is but the agent of the Almighty through which he accomplishes 
results, and that both science and divine power may be invoked together to 
restore diseased and suffering humanity. But, sitting as a court of law for the 
purpose of construing and determining the meaning of statutes, we have nothing 
to do with these variances in religious beliefs and have no power to determine 
which is correct. We place no limitations upon the power of the mind over the 
body, the power of faith to dispel disease, or the power of the Supreme Being 
to heal the sick. We merely declare the law as given us by the legislature. We 
have considered the legal proposition raised by the record, and we have found no 
error on the part of the trial court that called for a reversal." 

In the court below in that case the accused was found guilty. The appellate 
division of the supreme court, reversed, and on appeal to the court of apijeals 
the appellate division was reversed and the conviction was sustained. 

We also find the following language in an opinion by Mr. Justice Field in the 

Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Davis v. Beason (133 U. S. 333) : 

"The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, 

and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and 

of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship 


of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The first amendment 
to the Constitution, in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the 
establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended 
to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such 
notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may 
be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in 
such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights 
of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or 
the modes of worship of any sect. * * * There have been sects which denied as 
a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advo- 
cated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its 
members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices 
on special occasions has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of 
these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow 
the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pre- 
tense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their 
exercise by the Constitution of the United States." 

There is no question that under the Constitution of both the United States 
and the State of Maryland a person has a right to believe in any particular 
religion or faith that he cares to, but he does not have the absolute freedom to 
act in accordance with the tenets of any of those religions, but in his action he 
is bound to follow the laws duly enacted for the preservation of the health of 
citizens generally. He cannot object on religious grounds to laws enacted either 
by National, State, or city authorities. I find in this case that from the evidence 
none of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, Hoffman, to freedom of religious 
belief would be invaded or violated by the adoption of the proposed program. 

I might say also that we have several cases in Maryland, particularly the case 
of Jiidcfind V. State (78 Md. 510), in which a man was indicted for violating the 
law prohibiting work on Sunday. The objection was made that members of a 
certain denomination do not observe Sunday as their Sabbath ; that they observe 
as their Sabbath another day during the week ; and they contended if the law 
was upheld, it would promote the Christian religion to the detriment of their 
religion, which allowed its members to work on Sunday. The court of appeals 
affirmed the conviction in that case and held that the believers in every religion 
were required to submit to the laws duly passed by the proper authorities. See 
also Hiller v. State (124 Md. 38-5), in which a law prohibiting playing baseball 
on Sunday was attacked on constitutional groimds. 

The question has arisen as to the right of the city to adopt this program of 
fluoridation. It has been suggested that the city has the right to do this under 
subsection 11 of section 6 of the city charter, which authorizes the mayor and 
the City Council of Baltimore to provide for the preservation of the health of 
all persons within the city, to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases 
within the city and within 3 miles of the same upon land and within 15 miles 
thereof upon the navigable waters leading thereto, and to prevent and remove 
nuisances. And also under subsection 24, section 6, of the city charter, which 
is a delegation to the city of the police power in the city to the same etxent as 
the States has or could exercise said power within said limits, but it seems to me 
that subsection 37, section 6, of the city charter would be more applicable here. 
Under subsection 37 of section 6, the mayor and City Council of Baltimore is 
given the right and power to establish, maintain, regulate, and control a system 
of water supply, and to make charges for the consumption or use of said water. 
I am of the opinion that the power to promulgate and go through with this 
program would be sanctioned under that provision and subsection 11 of section 6, 
relating to health and nuisances. 

I find nothing in the charter or in the ordinances that would authorize the 
water engineer or the commissioner of health to go through with a plan of this 
kind on their own initiative. It has been suggested that the water engineer 
would have the right to do that, but the power given him under the city charter 
and also under the code are limited and restricted. And it has been suggested 
that the water engineer would have authority under section 642 of the city 
charter, which provides for water supply improvement. Gunpowder River, but 
that section is a grant of power to the mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and 
is not a grant of power to any particuular official of the city. 

Section 81 of the city charter creates the department of health, the head of 
which shall be the commissioner of health, who shall be appointed by the Mayor, 
and provides that: "He shall cause the ordinances for the preservation of the 


health of the inhabitants of Baltimore City to be faithfully executed and strictly 

It goes on then to provide for his salary and other matters that have nothing 
to do with his powers. Under that section of the charter he is charged with the 
duty of enforcing the ordinances. In the city code, article 12, section 1 : 

"The commissioner of health is required from time to time to make observa- 
tions of the several parts of the city and its environs which may be deemed the 
cause of disease, and in all cases where he may discover the existence of any 
agent the presence of which will prove dangerous to the health of the inhabi- 
tants, he shall cause any ordinances in existence for its correction to be enforced, 
or if there be no ordinance competent to the correction of the evil he shall 
make a full report of all of the attending circumstances to the mayor, accom- 
panied by his opinion of the necessity of extraordinary or particular action." 

Other provisions of that section indicate he acts in an advisory capacity, and 
that he is the watchdog for the city as to any matters that may be prevalent here 
that would cause the spread of disease, and it is his duty to take all action within 
his power to prevent disease, and in the event he has not the authority to take 
appropriate action then it is his duty to report it to the mayor so that an ordi- 
nance or resolution may be passed giving him the specific authority to act in any 
instances in which it should be necessary for him to do so. Of course there are 
many other instances where there are direct ordinances authorizing him to take 
action in certain cases. 

It appears from the evidence that this authority of the water engineer and 
the commissioner of health to act in this case is derived from certain resolutions 
passed by the City Council of Baltimore, and the question then arises as to 
whether the City Council of Baltimore has the authority to act by way of resolu- 
tion rather than by ordinance. There are several provisions in the Charter re- 
garding the legislative duties and powers of the mayor and City Council of Balti- 
more under the charter. 

Section 11, page 45, provides : "All ordinances or resolutions duly passed by the 
city council after being properly certified by the president of the city council as 
having been so passed, shall be delivered by the clerk to the mayor for his ap- 
proval, and there shall be noted on said ordinance or resolution the date of said 

Then it goes on to provide what should be done in the event that the mayor 
vetoes certain ordinances or resolutions, that they should be returned to the 
city council for further action. 

Section 26 provides that "ordinances and resolutions of the city may be read 
in evidence from the printed volumes thereof published by its authority." 

And section 28 of the city charter states : "Every legislative act of the city 
shall be by ordinance or resolution." 

So I would take it from that provision in the city charter that a resolution not 
only can be but must be considered a legislative act of the city council, entitled 
to the same weight and respect as an ordinance. 

In 62 C. J. S., page 786, Municipal Corporations, No. 411, it is stated that the 
terms "resolution" and "ordinance" have been used interchangeably, and that 
the term "resolution" has been held to be the equivalent of the term "ordinance' 
although a resolution generally is less solemn and formal than an ordinance, and 
further that a resolution passed with all formalities required for passing ordi- 
nances may operate as an ordinance regardless of the name by which it is called. 

In Pennsylvania, in the case of Kcpncr v. Coimnomrealih (40 Pa. 124), the 
court held that a resolution is only a less solemn or less usual form of an ordi- 
nance, but that it is an ordinance still if it is in any way intended to regulate any 
of the affairs of a municipality. 

The first resolution that was passed by the city council is Resolution No. 2469. 
That was introduced on November 13, 1950. and provides : 

"Whereas the American Dental Association has approved the fluoridation of 
the water supply as a preventive of dental decay, particularly in children, there- 
fore, be it resolved by the City Council of Baltimore that the Water Bureau and 
the Health Department of Baltimore City be and they are hereby requested to 
study the desirability of using fluoride chemicals in the water supply for the pur- 
pose of preventing the decay of children's teeth, and be it further resolved that if 
this study indicates that it is desirable to use fluoride chemicals steps be taken 
to do this at the earliest practicable date." 

The next resolution that was introduced was Resolution No. 506 (introduced 
February 25, 1952), and it provides: 


"Whereas there is disagreement among scientists as to the effect of water 
fluoridation on aging people, and whereas claims are made that fluoride is 
harmful to persons suffering from rheumatism and arthritis: Now, therefore, 
be it 

Resolved, hy the City Council of Baltimore, That the health committee request 
the commissioner of health and the water engineer to give to it whatever infor- 
mation is available on this treatment by fluoridation of city water supplies." 

A further resolution, No. 533, was introduced on March 10, 1952, which pro- 
vided that : 

"Wliereas there seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the wisdom of 
placing fluoride in the water supply, and 

Whereas it seems desirable that further study should be given to this important 
subject in order to determine whether such chemical will be harmful to certain 
adults, and 

Whereas while such fluoridation of water may be beneficial to young children, 
if the result is that adults are seriously harmed, and 

Whereas a slight further delay until additional information may be obtained 
may not prove to be harmful : Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the City Council of Baltimore, That the commissioner of health and 
the water engineer of Baltimore City be and they are hereby requested to delay 
the fluoridation of the city's water supply until additional information has been 
acquired in order to determine whether it is a wise step to take under all of 
the circumstances." 

I understand from the testimony there was a public hearing held on this last 
ordinance, No. 533, in which persons testified in favor of the resolution, and 
of course the commissioner of health and others testified against the resolution, 
and the resolution was defeated, the evidence shows, by a vote of 17 to 4, and 
after this resolution was defeated Dr. Williams testified that he considered it 
then to be an ultimatum to him to proceed with the fluoridation of the water 

I might state that in accordance with resolution 506 the commissioner of health 
did make a study of the situation and favorably reported on this program to the ' 
mayor and City Council of Baltimore, as I have previously referred to in com- 
menting on Dr. Williams' testimony in this case. So that because of the fact 
that this study indicated it would be desirable to use fluoride chemicals in 
accordance with resolution 2469, it seems to the court that there was ample 
authority to the commissioner of health and the water engineer to proceed with 
the program at the earliest practicable date, as provided in resolution 2469. ' 

I find from the evidence and from a consideration of the city charter that 
this resolution which was duly passed by the council and approved by the 
mayor constitutes a legislative act of the city council, and the commissioner of 
health and the water engineer were in duty bound to comply with the pro- 
visions of the resolution. As a matter of fact, if they had not complied they 
would be subject to official censure for not acting in accordance with a resolu- 
tion duly passed by the city council which declared it was the legislative intent 
of the city council, approved by the mayor, that this program of ingesting fluoride 
in the limited degree that it is proposed to do in the city water supply would 
be advantageous to the citizens of Baltimore City. 

The argument is made that because the city water supply is supplied to 
certain localities in 3 counties bordering the city, one, Baltimore County, and 
the others, Anne Arundel County and Howard County, that it would be a 
deprivation of constitutional rights of the inhabitants of those 3 counties who 
are supplied with city water to be required to comply with legislation which was 
passed locally in Baltimore City. However, the plan has been approved by 
the State department of health, and there are no individuals in any of the locali- 
ties in the counties involved in this program who have made any complaint 
at all, so that in the absence of a complaint from members of those localities 
I am of the opinion that argument is not sufficient in this case to prevent the 
city from proceeding with this program. 

For the reasons stated above I will sign a decree dismissing the bill of com- 
plaint, the plaintiffs to pay the costs. 



Monday, May 31, 1954 

No. 41717 

Marke E. Chapman et al. v. City of Shreveport 

Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo ; the Honorable 
James U. Galloway, judge 
Hawthorne, J. 

This is an appeal by the city of Shreveport from a judgment enjoining it 
from fluoridating the municipal water supply. The city of Shreveport owns and 
operates its own municapal waterworks plant and other facilities for the sale 
and distribution of water for consumption and other uses of the inhabitants of 
that city. On October 16, 1953, the Shreveport City Council adopted a resolu- 
tion authorizing the commissioner of public utilities to proceed with the adver- 
tising and calling for bids for the necessary equipment to fluoridate the city 
water supply in accordance with the best plans now available, and to receive 
these bids on or before October 27. The initial amount which the city pro- 
poses to spend in order to fluoridate the water supply is shown by the record 
to be in excess of $10,000 and the annual operating expense approximately $21,000. 

The plaintiffs, as residents, citizens, taxpayers, and purchasers of water from 
the city, instituted this suit seeking a preliminary writ of injunction to prevent 
the proposed fluoridation of the public water supply and the expenditure of these 
public funds for such purpose. After trial in the lower court a preliminary 
injunction issued enjoining, I'estraining, and prohibiting the city of Shreveport 
from proceeding further to fluoridate the water supply of that city. From that 
judgment the city was granted a devolutive appeal to this court. 

As we appreciate and understand the trial judge's written opinion, he granted 
. a preliminary injunction in the instant case because in his opinion the charter 
of the city of Shreveport delegated no authority, express or implied, to the city 
to fluoridate its water supply, and the city did not have this power or right under 
its police power in the domain of public liealth. In the course of his reasons 
for judgment he recognized the well-settled principle of law that a municipal 
authority may take any action it may determine to be necessary and expedient 
under its police power in the domain of pul)lic health, provided the purpose and 
object of such action bears a reasonable relation to the public health and pro- 
vided the means employed is not arl)itrary, unreasonable, oppressive, or violative 
of the constitutional guaranties of the citizens. He concluded, however, that 
under the facts of the instant case the fluoridation of the city water supply 
bears no reasonable relation to the public health or that it is not a matter of 
public health but is strictly within the realm of private dental health and hygiene, 
in which each person should be free to choose his course for himself and those 
for whom he is responsible in the family relationship. 

For the primary purpose of reducing tf)Oih decny in children 12 years of age 
and under, the city of Shreveport proposes to add to the water furnished by it 
for the use and consumption of its citizens sodium fluoride in the proportion of 
1 part per million. In furtherance of this purpose the resolution authorizing 
the calling for bids for the necessary equipment for fluoridation was adopted by 
the city council at the request of the council on dental health of the Fourth Dis- 
trict Dental As.s^ociation, the Shreveport Medical Society, and the City Board 
of Health of Shreveport, all of which advocated and approved the fluoridation 
of the city's water supply. 

The relationship between the fluoride content of water supplies and dental 
caries has been tlie subject for some years of extensive scientific study, research, 
and experiments, and as a result of this research the court in the instant case 
has the benefit of facts ascertained, studies made, and opinions formed by many 
leading and prominent American dentists, physicians, surgeons, scientists, health, 
and dental associations and organizations whose statements have been filed in 
evidence, on the advisability of the fluoridation of water for human consumption. 
In sum. these statements disclose the following pertinent facts : 

Dental caries, or tooth decav. is a pandemic disease, affecting most of our 
population, both adults and children. Flourides in varying proportions from 
less than 1 to 14 parts per million exist naturally in the water supplies of many 
regions of this country, and it has been demonstrated by studies made in many 


sections throughout the United States that in communities where the water 
supply contains no fluoride tooth decay among children is approximately 3 times 
greater than it is among children living in communities where the water supply 
contains 1 part of fluoride per million parts of water or more. In these studies 
other factors of diet and other mineral components of water were considered, 
but it was found that only the fluoride content of the water consumed bore direct 
relationship to consistent protection from dental caries. This preventive effort 
of fluorides on tooth decay was found to be most efl3cient during the i)eriod 
when the dentine and enamel of the permanent dentition are being formed, 
which is the period from birth to about the 12th year, but it was shown that 
the protection afforded against dental caries in this formative period continues 
well into adult life, even into the middle thirties and forties. Studies were 
made of the effect on tooth decay when fluorides were artificially added to- 
municipal water supplies, and it was found that the fluorides artificially added* 
had the same preventive ett'ect on caries as did the fluorides naturally existing, 
in water. 

By November 6, 1953, more than 840 communities, with a total population of 
15,578,300, were using water supplies which had been artificially fluoridated 
in concentrations from 0.7 to 1.5 parts per million. By 1951, after 5 or 6 years 
of the fluoridation of the water supplies in certain cities, studies and exami- 
nations were made of the teeth of school children in these cities (and also, for 
comparison, of those of the children in cities where the water supply con- 
tained no fluorides), and the flnding reported was that there has been a reduc- 
tion of from 50 percent to 65 percent of decay in permanent teeth in children^, 
in the cities where fluorides had been added artiflcially to the water. As a 
result of these studies and experiments the United States Public Health Service,, 
the National Institutes of Health, the American Dental Associaion, and num- 
erous other national organizations recommended the fluoridation of municipal 
water supplies as a desirable and effective health measure. 

The city of Shreveport proposes to use the recommended concentration of 
one part per million, and this concentration has not been reported to produce- 
any adverse physiological effect. Vital statistics and reports of physicians from 
conjmunities where water containing one part per million or over is consumed 
have shown uniformly no undesirable effects on birth or death rates or oa 
invalids, elderly, or sick individuals, or any other persons. 

The addition of fluorides to the water supply does not affect the color, odor, 
or taste of the water. The same kind of procedure which has long been used' 
to feed chlorine and other chemicals into the water supply is used to introduce 
fluorides into the water, and there is no question that fluorides can thus be 
added to the water without danger of physical overfeeding or any mechanical 
breakdown which would produce a toxic effect. 

The charter of the city of Shreveport, which was written under the authority 
of a 1948 amendment to article 14, section 37, of the Constitution and approved' 
by a vote of the citizens of that community in 1950, confers upon that city the- 
power to adopt such measures as are necessary in the opinion of the council to 
promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of that city in section 2.01 of the 
charter [sic] : 

"General Powers. — The city of Shreveport shall have and may exercise all 
the powers, rights, and privileges and immunities which are now or may here- 
after be or could be conferred upon cities of its population class by the constitu- 
tion and general laws of the State ; all powers, rights, privileges, and immunities 
heretofore conferred on said city by any special act and not inconsistent with- 
this plan of government ; and all other powers pertinent to the government of the 
city tlie exercise of which is not expressly prohibited by the constitution of the 
St.-ite and which, in the opinion of the council, are necessary or desirable to 
proiitotc the general tcelfare of the city and the safety, health, peace, good order, 
comfort, convenience, and morals of its inhabitants, as fully and completely as 
thouii'h such powers were specifically enumerated in this plan of government, and 
no enumeration or particular powers in this plan of government shall be taken 
to he exclusive but .shall be held to be in addition to this general grant of power." 
[Italics ours.] 

Accordingly, if fluoridation of the water supply bears any reasonable relation. 
to the public health, it can be undertaken by the city under the express provi- 
sions of this section of its charter. Moreover, it is well settled that courts will 
not interfere with the legislative authority in the exercise of is police power 
unless it is plain and palpable that .such action has no real or substantive relation. 


to the public health or safety or general welfare (City of Shreveport v. Conrad, 
212 La. 737, 33 So. 2d 503 ; City of Shreveport v. Bayse et al., 166 La. 689, 117 
So. 775). There also exists a presumption that an ordinance adopted under the 
police power of the State is valid, and the burden of proving the contrary is on 
him who asserts the invalidity or nullity (City of Neiv Orleans v. Beck, 139 La. 
595, 71 So. 883 ; Ward et al. v. Leclie et al., 189 La. 113, 179 So. 52 ; State v. Saia, 
212 La. 868, 33 So. 2d 665; State v. Rones, 223 La. 839, 67 So. 2d 99). 

Although the immediate purpose of the proposed fluoridation is to retard and 
decrease the disease of dental caries in young children, the protection thus given 
will continue well into adult life. Not only will the proposed fluoridation retard 
and reduce this disease in the generation of children presently in Shreveport, 
but its effect will continue into their adult life, and consequently the proposed 
measure will ultimately be beneficial to all the residents of the city. 

The health of the children of a community is of vital interest and of great 
importance to all the inhabitants of the community. Their health and physical 
well being is of great concern to all the people, and any legislation to retard 
or reduce disease in their midst cannot and should not be opposed on the ground 
that it has no reasonable relation to the general health and welfare. Children 
of today are adult citizens of tomorrow, upon whose shoulders will fall the 
responsibilities and duties of maintaining our Government and society. Any 
legislation, therefore, which will better equip them, by retarding or reducing 
the prevalence of disease, is of great importance and beneficial to all citizens. 
In our opinion, the legislation does bear a reasonable relation to public health. 
The appellees insist, and the district judge concluded, that fluoridation of 
the water to prevent tooth decay is not a matter of public health, but a matter 
of private health and hygiene. The evidence in this record refutes overwhelm- 
ingly this conclusion. Dental caries is one of the most serious health problems 
in the city of Shreveport, and in the Nation as well. The fact that it is not a 
communicable disease and one that can cause an epidemic does not detract 
from its seriousness as affecting the health and well being of the community. 
The plan for fluoridation, therefore, bears a reasonable relation to the general 
welfare and the general health of the community, and is a valid exercise of 
the power conferred by section 2.01 of the charter if it is not arbitrary or 

The appellees contend that fluoridation of the water supply is arbitrary and 
unreasonable because it may cause serious ill effects to the adult, aged, and 
ill ; that it is arbitrary to fluoridate the water until clinical tests have proved 
that these serious effects will not result. The appellees have failed completely 
to prove that fluoridation would be harmful to the aged and ill. 

There is expert opinion of respectable medical authority that fluorides added 
to water will have no more harmful effect than fluorides naturally appearing in 
water, and that in those places where fluorides naturally appear no ill effects 
have been experienced by the aged or ill of the population. In those places 
where tests have been conducted no ill effects have been shown. It cannot be 
said, then, that the city of Shreveport is acting arbitrarily from this point of 

Appellees contend that it is arbitrary and unreasonable to compel a pei'son 
to submit to the taking of preventive medicine except for the purpose of con- 
trolling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases. Their argument is not 
entirely appropriate to the instant case. In the first plac-e, there is no direct 
compulsion on anyone to drink the water. The compulsion at most is an indirect 
one, but it cannot be questioned, of course, that the fluoridation is undertaken 
with the view that the citizens or a large majority of them will receive its 
benefits by drinking the public water. The witnesses from the dental pro- 
fession considered that the addition of fluoride to the water was not medicating 
it in the generally accepted sense, but was adding to it one of the mineral 
properties found naturally in water in some sections of the country. 

Appellees next argue that it is unreasonable to fluoridate the water when 
it will reduce the incidence of disease only among a limited class. A health 
measure is not necessarily arbitrary because it aifects primarily one class. It 
may, even so, be in the interest of the public generally. Ultimately, of course, 
the fluoridation will benefit the whole population because the retarding of decay 
extends into adult life of the child who has had the benefit of water containing 
fluorides. It has long been recognized that a police measure is not objectionable 
because it does not extend to all classes. In Zueht v. King et al. (260 U. S. 
174, 43 S. Ct. 24, 67 L. Ed. 194) , it was said : 


"* * * A long line of decisions by this court * * * (has) settled that in the 
exercise of the police power reasonable classification may be freely applied and 
that regulation is not violative of the equal protection clause merely because it 
is not all-embracing. * * *" (See also West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish et al., 
300 U. S. 379, 57 S. Ct. 578, 81 L. Ed. 703 ; Stui-gcs d Barr Manufacturing Co. v. 
Bcauchamp, 231 U. S. 320, 34 S. Ct. 60, 58 L. Ed. 245.) 

There is no merit in appellees' argument that, if the city charter grants to the 
city council of Shreveport authority to tluoridate its water supply, such action 
to that extent is a violation of the 14th amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. The 14th amendment does not deprive a State or its subdivisions of 
the right to preserve order or to protect the health of the people under its police 
power, and in the exercise of its power the legislative branch may interfere with 
and impair the individual liberty of the citizens in a manner and to an extent 
reasonably necessary for the public interest, and the courts will not interfere 
except where the measures invade fundamental rights or are arbitrary, oppres- 
sive, or unreasonable. This is not a proper case for judicial interference. (See 
Cooley on Constitutional Law (4th ed.), p. 289; 2 Cooley's Constitutional Limita- 
tions (Sth ed.), pp. 1223 et seq. ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. H, 25 S. Ct. 
358, 49 L. Ed. 643 ; State v. McCormick, 142 La. 580, 77 So. 288.) 

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is reversed and 
set aside, and plaintiff's suit is dismissed at their costs. 

Mr. Gar\'ey. I would like now to present to you, Mr. Cliairman, 
Dr. E. Harold Gale. 


The CHAiRMAisr. You may proceed, Dr. Gale. 

Dr. Gale. Thank you. 

I am E. Harold Gale, a practicing dentist of Albany, N. Y., and 
chairman of the Council on Legislation of the American Dental Asso- 
ciation. I am here today to present the views of the association with 
respect to H. R, 2341, entitled : "A bill to protect the public health 
from the clangers of fluoridation of water." With me to present addi- 
tional scientific testimony are Drs. H. Trendley Dean and J. Roy Doty, 
of Chicago, 111. Mr. Dean is secretary of the association's council 
on dental research; Dr. Doty is secretary of its council on dental 
therapeutics. Also present is Mr. Francis J. Garvey, of Chicago, 111., 
secretary of the council on legislation. 

The American Dental Association is the official spokesman for more 
than 80 percent of the practicing dentists of this country. It speaks 
for the members of a profession which exists to study the teeth and 
supporting structures, tlie diseases and disabilities which affect them, 
and the methods by which such diseases and disabilities may be pre- 
vented, treated, and cured. The most prevalent of the dental dis- 
eases is known as dental caries, commonly referred to by laymen as 
tooth decay. This is likewise the most prevalent of all human dis- 
eases. It affects approximately 95 percent of the population of the 
United States. Children as young as 2 years are afflicted with it and, 
if untreated, the disease may cause pain and suffering in all age groups 
so long as the teeth remain in the mouth. It is a disease from which 
the individual neither dies nor recovers. Once a carious lesion occurs, 
the affected hard tissue can never regenerate itself. The lesion can 
only get worse until it is treated by the dentist. Last year the Amer- 
ican people spent more than $li/^ billion for dental care, much of 
which cost may be directly attributed to the treatment of dental decay 


or to the replacement of teeth lost on account of decay. In addition, 
the Federal Government spent more than $100 million for dental 
service for members of the Armed Forces, for veterans, and for bene- 
ficiaries of the United States Public Health Service. 

And may I interpolate right here that I am sure the American 
Dental Association can be safe in feeling that there is no hope for its 
members in a monetary gain when they are advocating a method which 
they feel has proven to reduce the incidence of decay which would 
have an adverse effect on their income. I think that answers the 
whole question of motivation as far as the dental association is 

Manifestly, it is important healthwise and from an economic stand- 
point to encourage the development and use of effective preventive 
measures which will give the American people some relief from the 
2:)ain and expense that this disease entails. 

The most successful preventive procedure yet devised for the reduc- 
tion of the incidence of tooth decay is the fluoridation of communal 
water supplies. 

Community water fluoridation is merely the introduction into the 
water system of a comminiity of a sufficient amount of fluoride-bearing 
material to produce in the water a fluoride ion content of approxi- 
mately 1 part of fluoride ion to 1 million parts of water. Tlie fluoride 
ion can be obtained from any number of chemicals. As you will hear 
from the waterworks engineers who will testify here, the process of 
adjusting the fluoride ion content of a public water supply is simple 
and sage. It is likewise relatively inexpensive both to install and to 
keep in operation. It lias been estimated that the total cost of pro- 
viding fluoridated water is only about 10 cents per year per person, 
about the. cost of an ice cream cone. Others will tell you in detail of 
the beneficial results to be obtained in terms of decay reduction. Let 
me say only that the evidence of controlled studies reveals a reduction 
60 to 65 percent of the amount of tootli decay that might otherwise be 
exoected to occur were the water supplies lacking fluorine. 

Extravagant statements have been made by the opponents of fluori- 
dation. Some have said that it will cause cancer. In a letter to Dr. 
Aubrey Cox, of Wichita Falls, Tex., dated March 25, 1954, which J 
have attached hereto as appendix A so that it may be made part of 
the record, Dr. Charles S. Cameron, president of the American Cancer 
Society, said : 

The American Cancer Society does not consider fluorine or the common fluorine 
salts to be carcinogenic. Its position, therefore, with respect to water fluorida- 
tion for the purpose of dental caries prophylaxis, is that such treatment of public 
water supplies is without danger so far as cancer causation is concerned. 

'Some have said that this process involves the introduction of a 
poison into the water supply. As Dr. Doty and others will tell you, 
the recommended amount of 1 \)nvt of fluoride ion per 1 million parts 
of water is not toxic. AVe employ many things in our daily lives which 
if used in excessive quantities Avould be poisonous but which in the 
proper amounts have a beneficial effect, for exam]:)le, chlorine in water, 
iodine in salt, vitamins in foods, enrichment additives in bread. Some 
have said that community water fluoridation would have an adverse 
effect upon the kidneys. This has been adequately refuted by eminent 
scientists highly trained in this field of physiology. 


Other iinfoiinded claims as to the daiiirPi's of fluoridation have failed 
to find the su])port of scientific evidence. 

Tlie title of H. R. 2841 makes an unwarranted assumption that the 
public is in danger from water fluoridation. It then proceeds in the 
text of the bill to assume that the Congress has powers of local regu- 
lation never given to it by the Constitution. While Congress conceiv- 
ably has the power to prohibit the fluoridation of water in Federal 
territory and the power to prohibit Federal installations from receiv- 
ing fluoridated water, no known principle of law has as yet conferred 
upon it the power to tell States and their local political subdivisions 
how to exercise the police power which is inherent in such States and 
municipalities. H. R. 2341 is, our attorneys advise us, clearly uncon- 
stitutional in its attempt to prohibit States and their political sub- 
divisions from treating with fluorides municipal water supplies, or 
from making available to any person or institution, not an instru- 
mentality of the Federal Government, water which has been fluori- 
dated, i am sure that your committee is aware of this. 

Prior to 1950 responsible agencies of the American Dental Asso- 
ciation for many years watched the growth and development of the 
literature relating to fluoridation. In 1950, after years of careful and 
considered scientific evaluation, these agencies recommended to the 
house of delegates that the American Dental Association officially 
endorse the fluoridation of water supplies. The resolution adopted 
by the house of delegates is unequivocal and is attached to this state- 
ment for the record as appendix B. In addition to the American 
Dental Association, the dental societies of all 48 States and the 
District of Columbia, the American Medical Association, the United 
States Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, the Ameri- 
can Public Health Association, the American Public Welfare Asso- 
ciation, the Commission on Chronic Illness, the National Research 
Council, the xVmerican Hospital Association, the American Nurses 
Association, the Inter- Association Committee on Health, the Ameri- 
can Waterworks Association, the State and Territorial Dental Direc- 
tors, the American Society of Dentistry for Children, the American 
College of Dentists, the dental section of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, and various State and county 
medical societies have approved the procedure. In short, every re- 
sponsible national health agency in the country is in favor of the 

For the record, I would like to file, as appendix C, the statement 
of the Interassociation Committee on Health, of which the American 
Dental Association is a member. I would like also to request that 
the chairman and other members of the committee file for the record 
the statements of organizations not here today which have been mailed 
to you on this subject. I hope also that you will include in the 
record the general correspondence from dentists which I am sure 
indicates in detail the nature of the problem of dental caries and 
the value of community water fluoridation in all parts of the country 
as seen through the eyes of the men responsible for the peo]:)le's dental 
health, the practicing dentist o^ the communities in the United 
States. May I also urge that you print the records of these hearings 
so that those interested may have the benefits of the most up-to-date 
facts about fluoridation ? 


So that you may know the extent to which commuities throughout 
the country have ah-eady accepted the fluoridation of public water 
supplies I am attaching to my statement as appendix D a list of the 
communities throughout the country whi^h, according to informa- 
tion compiled by the association's council on dental health, are already 
adjusting their water supplies so that they contain the optimal amount 
of fluoride ion. You will notice that this list includes 944 communi- 
ties in 43 States. Tlie list is current as of May 14, 1954, just 2 
weeks ago. 

In conclusion, I thank you on behalf of the association for the 
opportunity to be present today to offer this testimony in support of 
a program of inestimable value to the people of the United States. 
The scientific aspects of the program will be discussed in detail by Drs. 
Dean and Doty, who will follow me. I hope that you will see fit to 
defeat this bill and by so doing to help in the improvement of the dental 
health of American citizens. 

(The appendixes referred to follow:) 

Appendix A 

March 25, 1954. 
E, Aubrey Cox, M. D., 

Cotmnittee Chairman, City of Wichita Falls, 

Wichita Falls, Tex. 
De:ar Dr. Cox : The American Cancer Society does not consider fluorine or ttie 
common fluorine salts to be carcinogenic. Its position, therefore, with respect 
to water fluoridation for tlie purpose of dental caries prophylaxis, is that such 
treatment of public water supplies is without danger so far as cancer causation is 

The evidence is as follows : 

(1) Laboratory: 

(a) Sodium fluoride does not accelerate the growth of established Walker rat 
sarcoma in experimental animals.^ This is a standard test tumor widely used 
in biological testing of growth stimulating or inhibiting compounds. 

(&) Sodium fluoride appears to actually inhibit the development of spontane- 
ous mammary carcinoma in mice." 

(c) Extensive toxicity studies of fluorine and its compounds, under numerous 
auspices, have failed to show that they have any cancer-causing or cancer-acceler- 
ating effects. 

id) The report of Alfred Taylor, Ph. D., of the biochemistry department of the 
University of Texas Medical Branch, that fluorine-containing water accelerated, 
the appearance of breast tumors in CsH mice (which are genetically highly sus- 
ceptible to breast cancer) has been effectively countered by Dr. Edward Taylor,* 
who quoted tlie findings of two scientists of the National Cancer Institute after 
a review of Alfred Taylor's work : "Dr. Howard Andervont and I (Dr. H. T. Dean) 
have carefully evaluated the data with respect to the alleged relation of fluoride 
water to an accelerated rate in the development of mammary tumors and are 
of the opinion that the evidence adduced does not warrant any modification in 
the policy of recommending fluoridation of public water supplies for the partial 
control of dental caries." 

(2) Epidemiologic: 

(a) Swanberg ^ has shown that the death rate from cancer in Grand Rapids, 
Mich., was 206/2/100,000 in the year 1944 ; that fluoridation was begun in that 

^ Effect of Fhioride on Tumor Growth : Finerty, J. C, and Grace, J. D., Texas Reports 
on Biology and Medicine 10, 3 p. 501, 1952. 

^ Tannenbaum, A., and Silverstone, H. Effect of Low Environmental Temperature 
Dlnitrophenol, or Sodium Fluoride on the Formation of Tumors in Mice, Cancer Kesearch, 
9, 7, p. 385, 1949. 

* Taylor, E., Facts Relative to Tumors That Fluoridation is Harmful, Texas Dental 
Journal, p. 381, September 1951. 

* Swanberg, Harold, Fluoridation of Water and Its Relation to Cancer, Mississippi Valley 
Medical Journal, 75 : 125-128, September 1953. 


city in January 1945 ; and that the death rates per hundred thousand of population 
for succeeding years were as follows : 

1945 190. 5 

194G 170. 4 

1947 172. 3 

li^S 163. 1 

1949 187. 6 

1950 189. 2 

1951 183. 1 

1952 185. 3 

(6) A comprehensive study by the United States Public Health Service was 
based on all cities in the United States having population of 10,000 and over 
whose water* contained 0.7 part per million or more fluoride naturally present, 
on one hand, and 0.2 part per million or less, on the other. No significant differ- 
ence between the age adjusted death rates from cancer, heart disease, and 
nephritis in the 28 high-fluoride cities and the rates in 60 low-fluoride cities could 
be found. 

(c) Studies of breast cancer incidence rates in 13 Texas cities divided into 
3 groups according to fluoride content of drinliing water showed that the rate 
was lower in cities with high fluoride content than in cities with low content.* 

I trust the above provides you with helpful data. Needless to say, I shall be 
glad to be of any furtlier help I can. 
Sincerely yours, 

Charles S. Cameron, M. D. 

Appendix B 

Policy of the American Dental Association 

"Whereas numerous studies have demonstrated a decreased incidence of dental 
decay associated with the presence of fluoride occurring naturally in drinking 
water ; and 

Whereas there is a rapidly accumulating body of data derived from direct 
studies of the artificial addition of fluoride to drinking water ; and 

Whereas these data provide convincing evidence of the safety of this pro- 
cedure and of its benefits in terms of reduced incidence of dental caries : There- 
fore be it 

Resolved, That in the interest of public health, the American Dental Associa- 
tion recommends the fluoridation of municipal water supplies when the fluorida- 
tion procedure is approved by the local dental society and utilized in accordance 
with the standards established by the responsible health authority ; and be it 

Resolved, That the American Dental Association recommends the continuation 
of controlled studies of the beneflts derived from the fluoridation of water 

Appendix C 

Interassociation Committee on Health 

1790 Broadway, New York 19, N. Y. 

MBTMBER associations 

American Dental Association 
American Hospital Association 
American Medical Association 
Amei'ican Nurses Association 
American Public Health Association 
American Public Welfare Association 

Statement op Interassociation Committee on Health 

The following statement was unanimously approved by the member organiza- 
tions of the Interassociation Committee on Health — American Dental Association, 
American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, American Nurses 
Association, American Public Health Association, American Public Welfare 
Association : 

» Same as footnote 3. 


Since scientific reports published 35 years ago on tlie prevalence of endemic 
dental fluorosis in the United States, evidence has accumulated demonstrating 
the influence of small amounts of fluoride on dental health. Too much fluoride 
in drinking water results in a condition known as dental fluorosis, or mottled 
enamel; too little is associated with a high dental caries-experience rate. Be- 
tween these two extremes, however, there is an optimum concentration of 
fluoride of about 1 part per million which effectively prevents a substantial 
amount of dental caries without causing dental fluorosis. 

The prohlem of uncontrolled dental caries. — In the average community not 
benefiting from fluorides in its water supply, up to 50 percent of the 2-year-old 
children have 1 or more carious teeth, and the caries attack continues at a high 
rate to the extent that 95 percent of the population is affected. Dental caries 
results also in considerable cost for corrective dental services throughout an 
individual's lifeime. 

Unimpeded by preventive measures, dental caries creates a health problem of 
considerable magnitude because of its high rate of occurrence and its numerous 
sequelae that result from neglect. Dental defects thus created are accumulating 
at a rate 4 to 5 times faster than can be corrected by presently available dental 
personnel. Sound public health practice, therefore, requires a reduction in tlie 
size of the problem by the use of effective preventive measures ; especially those 
mea.sures which are applicable on a widespread basis and benefit all persons 
in the community. 

Epedemioloffical studies. — Epedemiological studies in many areas throughout 
the United States and abroad have shown that, within certain limits, a con- 
sistent inverse relationship exists between the fluoride content of drinking water 
and the amount of dental caries experience in children, particularly those using 
fluoride-bearing water continuously since birth. It has been found also that 
a concentration greater than about 1 part per million, provides little, if any, 
additional benefit. As the concentration increases beyond 2 parts per million, 
an increasing number of persons has fluorosed enamel that is easily detectable. 
Numerous investigations have shown that people reared in areas where drinking 
water contains approximately 1 part per million of fluorine have experienced 
only about one-third as much dental caries as those reared in areas where the 
water supplies are fluorine free. Evidence indicates also that the benefits are 
retained throughout life. 

Studies on controlled fluoridation. — Studies begun in 1945 indicate that a 
similar degree of protection against dental caries is found in areas where the 
fluorine content has been adjusted to an optimum level as is found in areas where 
the same concentrations occur naturally. Statistical data show a significant 
reduction of dental caries in children and there is also evidence to suggest 
some protection to the teeth of persons who were young adults when fluorida- 
tion was undertaken. Continued observations will establish the ultimate degree 
of effectiveness in older age groups who used fluoridated water during childhood. 

Studies on safety of fluoridation. — There is extensive literature on the pharma- 
cology and toxicology of fluorides. The reports include laboratory investiga- 
tions as well as studies conducted among people who have lived continuously 
in areas where the drinking water contains high concentrations of fluorides. 

The most sensitive indication of an adverse physiological effect of fluoride 
ingestion is an enamel defect known as dental fluorosis. Accumulated exi>eri- 
ence provides no evidence that the prolonged ingestion of drinking water with 
a mean concentration of fluorides below the level causing dental fluorosis has any 
harmful effect. 

A program involving the adjustment of the concentration of fluoride content 
in the municipal water supply is especially practical and safe because it is 
constantly subject to control by competent health authorities and does not 
require action on the part of individual citizens. 

Cost and enf/ineering aspect